‘A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT’ Building Canadian National Identity, 1970-2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much has been written on Canada’s woes at articulating a useable, broadly accepted national identity and the assorted public policy dilemmas that arise from this lack of uniting principles. Part of this stems from the residual influence of both external powers on Canadian social and political life, as well as from unanswered questions relating to domestic sovereignty and political cohesion. Accordingly, Canada’s elite and mass cultures have had a difficult time outlining a positive sketch of what it means “to be Canadian”. At best, many simply point to what Canada is not, which is woefully inadequate as a statement of national identity. During the roughly century and a half since formalizing the Dominion of Canada, numerous efforts have been made at creating and fostering a sense of national self-consciousness, but few of these have managed to stick in the minds of citizens or stand up to scrutiny and skepticism. However, perhaps the only identity that has endured is the notion that Canada is, fundamentally, a proudly multicultural state. With the rise of right wing, populist politics, both abroad and at home, and mounting anxieties over the continued existence of the liberal international order, the dominance of multiculturalism as a guiding framework is being challenged. This, therefore, raises the question: if multiculturalism can be so easily toppled, was it ever truly a central tenant of the Canadian national project?
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".