The Politics of Representative Bureaucracy in Canada: A Problem Definition Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the representation of minorities in the public service has been addressed in two ways. Official languages legislation has effectively remodelled the Canadian civil service as a bilingual institution through the designation of official bilingual regions and positions. Alternately, employment equity policies use an evaluation and exposure approach requiring all major Canadian employers to submit annual reports on the representation of four designated groups (women, visible minorities, Aboriginals, and persons with disabilities). Using a problem definition theoretical model our research demonstrates that the application of specific policy tools is a product of differing social and historical contexts. Representation of minority groups was achieved through the implementation of official language and employment equity legislation. In the face of a national crisis policy entrepreneurs chose to adopt official language legislation not only as a solution to demographic imbalances in federal administrative institutions, but also to redefine Canada as an officially bilingual state. 18 years later, bearing in mind international and historical legislative precedent, employment equity legislation was put into place as the next step in Canada’s human rights journey.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".