Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study applies the concept of politics of to explore the dynamics of Canadian Sikh society in context of struggles for power in the overseas Sikh Gurdwaras. Culture and identity are variously perceived to be traditional, modern, or radical. However, the politics of approach reveals how culture and identity are articulated, constructed, invented, and commodified as means to achieve political ends. The Sikhs are a classic example of how physical and cultural symbols are used to construct an ethnic boundary surrounding the The Sikhs themselves invariably represent their community as homogeneous and particularly close-knit. However, since the Sikhs` migration to Canada, differentiation and disjunction among the Canadian Sikhs have grown out of power conflicts between old timers and newcomers, as well as between the group and the group. The intensification of religious practice-partly the result of living in ethnic colony like Surry in Greater Vancouver-has set off heated debates over the form for religious practice. As arguments have grown fiercer, the easiest way for newcomer fundamentalist Sikh groups to discredit their opponents is to allege that religious practices and codes of conduct followed by moderate Sikhs are neither proper nor authentic. The debates over proper Sikh practice were given an explosive boost in the 1980s by the rise of the `Khalistan Movement` in India. The assault on the Golden Temple and the Sikh massacre by the Hindu government suddenly made most Canadian Sikhs unite as never before. However, the debate has remained highly emotional, as pro- and anti- Khalistan factions have criticised one another ever more bitterly. This study does not deny certain forms of homogeneity in the Canadian Sikh community; however, a more comprehensive understanding of overseas Sikh identity can be attained by focusing on the sources of Canadian Sikh disunity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".