К ВОПРОСУ О ГАРМОНИЗАЦИИ ЦЕННОСТЕЙ ИММИГРАНТОВ И ПРИНИМАЮЩЕГО ОБЩЕСТВА: КВЕБЕКСКИЙ ИНТЕРКУЛЬТУРАЛИЗМ И ДИСКУССИИ О РАЗУМНЫХ КОМПРОМИССАХ (СЕРЕДИНА – ВТОРАЯ ПОЛОВИНА 2000-Х ГГ.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the debates on reasonable accommodation which took place in the Canadian Province of Quebec in the mid – second half of the 2000s. This stipulates adjustments made by the recipient community to accommodate and thus better integrate immigrants as carriers of other cultural / religious values. It shows the specificity of the Quebec model of interculturalism, which has gained international fame. The author emphasizes that the attitude of the French speaking Quebecois community to immigrants was influenced by its dual position: the majority in the province of Quebec (by many indicators comparable to a middle Western European nation-state), but the minority in Canada. This explains its susceptibility to assimilation fears and its desire to use immigration as a source for replenishment for the Quebecois nation, which, in turn, may lead to conflicts and/or mutual misunderstanding due to differences in the approaches / requirements / expectations of the majority and minority. The article provides examples of controversies related to the requests of representatives of minorities (mainly from the recent immigrants from the Third World countries) and the reaction of the French speaking Quebecois majority, which, on the one hand, emphasizes its secularism and openness, but on the other – is not value-neutral, while maintaining a significant substrate of the French Canadian Catholic Heritage. It also analyses the policy of the provincial government on those conflicts. Attention is given to the activity and recommendations of Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences (Bouchard-Taylor Commission) created by the Quebec Government in 2007. The author stresses the most important observations and recommendations contained in its final report.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.009 |
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".