Contemporary Realities and Future Visions: Enhancing Multiculturalism in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME The purpose of this article is to highlight the success and failure of multiculturalism in Canada and to present policy suggestions for enhancing its future. While multiculturalism is a defining characteristic of Canada's contemporary national identity, the reality of multi-culturalism is both complex and problematic. Based on previous empirical evidence and several social surveys as well as the 2001 census, it is shown that there are significant inequities among ethno-racial groups, most of which are experienced by visible minorities and recent immigrants. Although there is some evidence of lower civic society participation among ethno-racial minorities, this is limited to the formal political arena. Nevertheless, it has been shown that visible minorities possess a warm feeling toward Canada alongside similar feelings for their own ethno-racial communities. Ultimately, it is argued that the contradiction between ideologies rooted in individualism and collectivism can be viewed as an explanation of why multicultural policies have shown limited success in addressing ethno-racial inequities. Cet article cherche a presenter le succes ainsi que l'echec du multiculturalisme au Canada, et a presenter des recommandations de politiques visant a ameliorer son futur. Bien que le multiculturalisme soit une caracteristique intrinseque a la definition de l'identite nationale contemporaine au Canada, sa realite est a la fois problematique et complexe. Selon certaines donnees empiriques anterieures, plusieurs releves demographiques et le recensement de 2001, il existe des inegalites significatives parmi les groupes ethniques, dont souffrent surtout les nouveaux immigrants et les minorites visibles. Malgre les preuves d'une faible participation civique des minorites ethniques, il a toutefois ete demontre que les minorites visibles font preuve d'un sentiment de bien-etre face au Canada ainsi qu'un attachement semblable a leur propre communaute ethnique. Finalement, l'article soutient que la contradiction qui existe entre une ideologie ancree dans l'individualisme ou dans le collectivisme pourrait en fait expliquer pourquoi les politiques multiculturelles ont recueillies un pietre succes en matiere d'inegalites ethniques. INTRODUCTION This article discusses how we can enhance the future of multiculturalism in Canada. I discuss present ethno-racial inequalities in Canada before outlining reasons for the limited success of multiculturalism. Several suggestions are then made regarding what should be done if the policy is to accomplish its goals. Canadian multiculturalism is built on the three pillars of social justice, civic participation, and identity (specifically, a sense of belonging to Canada). In this first section, I offer evidence of the success and failure of these pillars using data collected from the Census of Canada (2001), the Ethnic Diversity Survey (2002), the Canadian Election Survey (2000), and the Academic Profession Survey (2000). With respect to social justice, a wide range of empirical research focusing on socioeconomic inequality demonstrates that ethno-racial minorities generally achieve higher education levels, yet are statistically less likely to appear in the upper income groups or to work in the types of occupations to which such educational credentials usually lead (see Lian and Mathew 1998; Herberg 1998; Gee and Prus 2000). We can further state that recent immigrants experience more of these types of inequities. Those who arrived in Canada in the 1980s and later have lower incomes, on average, and work at lower-level occupations compared to those born in Canada. Finally, among recent immigrants a clear demarcation exists between those classified as visible minority and the British or French charter groups (Reitz 2001; Reitz and Sklar 1997; Li 2000). These differences tend to persist even after education and other social capital characteristics are accounted for. …
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".