Multiculturalism, Human Rights, and Cultural Relativism: Canadian Civic Leaders Discuss Women's Rights and Gay and Lesbian Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the relationship among multiculturalism, human rights and cultural relativism is much discussed by academics, there is very little, if any, information on how ordinary citizens think through these concepts. This paper investigates the attitudes of 78 civic leaders in one multicultural society, Canada, to these concepts by asking them the questions, ‘Should all religious or ethnic groups have to support women's/gays’ rights?’ The choice of women's and gays’ rights reflects the centrality of the role of women, and of the family, in most cultures. The research finds that citizens are best described as weak cultural relativists. They are concerned to protect the cultures and religions of those who are seen to be different in Canadian society, but not at the expense of the basic human right of equality. They prefer persuasion and education to a strict ‘the law is the law’ approach to conforming to Canadian values. They are not concerned that minority groups’ values will undermine Canadian values, as they understand that through the process of socialisation, values change once immigration to Canada takes place. These civic leaders tend to agree with Kymlicka's perspective, that minorities should be protected from majorities, but not at the expense of the rights of individuals within the minority communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".