MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3096532044 · doi:10.22215/etd/2016-11570

Inclusiveness of Canadian identity in a contested landscape: Ingroup projection, multiculturalism, and Aboriginal reconciliation

2016· dissertation· en· W3096532044 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonas Weselake-George

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismIngroups and outgroupsFeelingMediationIdentity (music)Social psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceGender studiesSociologyLawAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada is undergoing a complex and politically difficult reconciliation process between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in response to past harms and contemporary problems.The present research investigates how, for non-Aboriginal Canadians, the extent of the inclusion or exclusion of Aboriginal peoples from Canadian identity interacts with the reconciliation process, feelings of threat from this process, and public support for reforms.Ingroup projection (i.e.believing or claiming that one's own subgroup is a superior example of the virtues or characteristics of a larger group identity than other subgroups) has been found to be associated with justifying inequality between groups in a society.It was predicted that, when the goals expressed by Aboriginal peoples include major reforms which may elicit feelings of threat, ingroup projection would be intensified.In turn, higher levels of ingroup projection by non-Aboriginal Canadians would be associated with reduced support for other reforms.It was expected that this relation between ingroup projection and support for reforms would be moderated by beliefs in multiculturalism.An online survey was administered to 275 non-Aboriginal first year students.Moderated mediation analyses found no evidence that ingroup projection was associated with lower support for reforms.Despite this, ingroup projection was found to be widespread, and showed some association with the extent to which non-Aboriginal Canadians perceived the goals of Aboriginal peoples as a threat.This perception of threat was directly associated with lower support for reforms.Although endorsement of multiculturalism was itself associated with higher support for reforms, it did not play any moderating role.Possible confounding effects of intergroup identification ix and assimilationist ideologies on ingroup projection are explored along with recommendations for future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial and Intergroup Psychology→French-language works237,207→