Multiculturalism in the British Commonwealth: Comparative Perspectives on Theory and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiculturalism in the British Commonwealth examines cultural diversity across the postwar Commonwealth, situating modern multiculturalism in its national, international, and historical contexts. Bringing together practitioners from across the humanities and social sciences to explore the legal, political, and philosophical issues involved, these essays address common questions: What is postwar multiculturalism? Why did it come about? How have social actors responded to it? In addition to chapters on Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand, this volume also covers India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Singapore, and Trinidad, tracing the historical roots of contemporary dilemmas back to the intertwined legacies of imperialism and liberalism. In so doing, it demonstrates that multiculturalism has implications that stretch far beyond current formulations in public and academic discourse. “This volume makes a significant contribution to the history and politics of crossnational multiculturalism within the English-speaking world. I expect this book to quickly become a principal text.” ANDREW FAGAN, author of Human Rights and Cultural Diversity “Ashcroft and Bevir have put together an excellent collection of essays by a first-rate group of scholars. I’d recommend this book to anyone interested in the challenges posed by cultural and national identity to liberal democratic states.” PHIL PARVIN, author of Karl Popper RICHARD T. ASHCROFT is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and in the International and Area Studies Program at the University of California, Berkeley. His research has been published in the Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy and The Political Quarterly. MARK BEVIR is Professor of Political Science and the Director of the Center for British Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He is also Professor of Governance at the United Nations University and a Distinguished Research Professor at Swansea University. He is the author of A Theory of Governance, The Making of British Socialism, and Democratic Governance.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".