What Role do Ethnic Enclaves Play in Municipal Agenda Setting: An Exploratory Case Study Analysis of Indo-Canadian and Indigenous Communities in Abbotsford, B.C. and Saskatoon Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pluralistic or competitive nature of policy problem definition in Canada involves the power to frame the problem and gain the attention of the public, resulting in setting government’s agenda. The collective action problem takes on an alternate meaning when looking through the lens of a Canadian multicultural policy. This thesis identifies where an ethnic enclave’s interests are highlighted at the municipal level. Using communication infrastructure theory as a guide, the conceptual framework elements examine the determinants that constrain municipal agenda setting, the necessary conditions that facilitate it, and the community structures of policy networks that shape municipal agendas. \nI collected data by interviewing community participants in two Canadian cities, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, and Abbotsford British Columbia. Analysis in the interview process went through two levels of coding using NVIVO. The results show that agenda setting occurs both through formal and informal channels that revolve around prior relationships. This thesis primarily addresses issues of interest to public policy analysts and those in bureaucracy charged with developing services and programs at the municipal level.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".