Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thematic issue has been produced to provide a background for discussion of the conceptual framework and development of indicators of ethnicity in Canada. Currently, the most comprehensive and consistent data source for measures of ethnicity is the Census of Population, conducted every five years, which asks a 20 percent sample of the population to report on the ethnic origin(s) of their ancestors. In 2002, a new survey on issues of ethnicity in society--the Diversity Survey--was conducted by Statistics Canada (in partnership with the Department of Heritage). The goal of that survey was to deconstruct concepts of ethnic ancestry and identity in order to better understand the role of ethnicity in people's lived experiences in society. The goal of this collection of articles is to provide a context for current applications of research on ethnicity in Canada and to stimulate discussion regarding how best to collect data and do applied research using these concepts in the future, given the changing demographics of the country. The papers selected for this publication were taken from a symposium on Ethnic Origin Data from the 2001 Census: Implications for Policy Research, held in Ottawa on March 28, 2003. The symposium was organized by the Citizenship and Heritage sector of the Department of Heritage, which is proud to encourage and facilitate such a discussion on issues of ethnicity and diversity. These are issues which are important to all Canadians, as well as being an integral part of the mandate of the Department of Heritage. The contributors come from a wide range of disciplines and backgrounds, but they all share a common interest in researching issues of ethnicity and diversity in society, and all have experience working with the complex and detailed data on ethnic origin that we have access to through Canada's Census of Population. In particular, 2002 and 2003 have been exciting years for researchers as new data is released from the first census of the millenium, which was carried out on May 15, 2001. Most significant to the analytic papers in this collection, the 2001 Census is unique in that it provides current data not only for ethnic origin using the traditional question about a respondent's ancestry, but also for the place of birth of each of the respondent's parents. This combination is precious to those working in research, program development, and policy making in Canada, as it allows for timely analysis and comparison of different concepts related to measuring ethnicity--ethnic origin and place of birth of parents. Dr. Richard Bourhis provides a conceptual and historical overview of the 2001 Census questions related to ethnic ancestry and diversity in the first article. He clarifies the context behind selected diversity indicators included on the long form census that is completed by a random sample of 20 percent of the population each census year. The political, social, and legal contexts discussed provide an important backdrop to the development and evolution of these questions on the national census. In particular, the article addresses the Canadian response to the ethnic origin question in addition to focusing on the unique situation of ethnic origin reporting trends in Quebec. It contrasts the debates in Canada about the inclusion of a question on ethnicity in the census with similar debates in France and provides a useful counterpoint to ongoing discussions here. In the second article, Dr. Jack Jedwab stresses the importance of research and analysis for understanding ethnicity in Canada. His article builds on the historical debates of the previous article in order to present questions and challenges to normative notions of ethnicity and ethnic identification, as well as to address what these mean at a practical, societal level. The article addresses the phenomena of Canadian and multiple reporting on the census, while contextualizing these trends with complementary survey and polling data. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".