Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter will examine the experience of the Greater Toronto Area Lao refugees in establishing their Buddhist temple, Wat Lao Veluwanaram in Caledon, a small rural town outside of Toronto. The previous chapter presents a theoretical model for understanding the dynamics of Buddhist communities in Toronto through the politics of recognition and representation. Similarly, this chapter utilizes Charles Taylor’s notions concerning the ‘politics of recognition’; however, rather than presenting a theoretical model, this chapter offers a case study of one community’s engagement with the ‘politics of recognition’ in order to examine the validity of Taylor’s position. In his article ‘The Politics of Recognition’, Charles Taylor examines the liberal democratic culture in North America and questions the current political and legal structure’s ability to offer the realization of cultural harmony. Taylor is primarily concerned with ‘the rigidities of procedural liberalism’ fostering an environment which is ‘inhospitable to difference’ because of the universal axiom of equality and the conflicting desire for the ‘survival’ of a culture which is distinct from that of the hegemony (Taylor 1994: 61). This case study will dilate on the ideal of cultural harmony, as it applies to the Lao Buddhist in Toronto, within the context of such key features as group identity, cultural expression, multiculturalism, and power. First, a brief account of the Lao’s arrival in Canada will be set down in order to show the connection between group identity and their refugee experience, and to demonstrate the relevance of a temple in their community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".