MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2724972132 · doi:10.17645/si.v5i2.891

Interculturalism and Physical Cultural Diversity in the Greater Toronto Area

2017· article· en· W2724972132 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yuka Nakamura, Peter Donnelly

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Inclusion · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
FundersUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
KeywordsInterculturalismDiversity (politics)Martial artsEthnic groupMulticulturalismCultural diversityDanceImmigrationSociologyGender studiesGeographyAnthropologyPedagogyVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is one of the most multicultural communities in the world. Frequently, this description is based on ethnic, linguistic, and culinary diversity. Physical cultural diversity, such as different sports, martial arts, forms of dance, exercise systems, and other physical games and activities, remains ignored and understudied. Based on a living database of the GTA’s physical cultural diversity, this study identifies the trajectories of the lifecycle of activities that have been introduced into the GTA’s physical culture by immigrants. These pathways differ based on whether the activity is offered in a separate setting, where individuals may be participating with other immigrants of the same ethnocultural group, or mixed settings, where people are participating with people from outside of their ethnocultural group. We argue that the diversity and the lifecycle trajectories of physical cultural forms in the GTA serve as evidence of interculturalism and the contribution by immigrants to the social and cultural life of Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial InclusionSame topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207