Bibliographic record
Abstract
The model of multiculturalism that emerged in Canada in the 1970s was intimately linked to national citizenship. Multiculturalism was premised on the assumption that immigrants would settle permanently and become citizens, and multiculturalism was seen as an attribute of Canadian citizenship, and a way of enacting citizenship. This tie to citizenship arguably served the interests of both immigrants and the native-born majority. For immigrants, it ensured that multiculturalism did not become a pretext for social exclusion and political marginalization; and for the native-born majority, it helped ensure that multiculturalism was domesticated, as it were, tying recognition of diversity to a shared social and political order. But this model has faced two major challenges in recent years: a neoliberal challenge, which sought to reorient multiculturalism more towards market principles than citizenship principles; and a mobility challenge, which sought to reorient multiculturalism away from ideas of permanent settlement and national citizenship towards ideas of temporary migration and liquid mobility. I critically evaluate these two challenges, focusing in particular on how they understand horizontal relations amongst residents/citizens and vertical relations between residents/citizens and the state. I identify some surprising parallels in the two critiques, and suggest that neither offers a compelling alternative to multicultural national citizenship.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".