Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Epilog discusses how 50 years of official multiculturalism have not culminated in greater clarity, consistency, or consensus except to acknowledge that multiculturalism is now (for better or worse) a fundamental characteristic of Canada (Chiasson 2012). But rather than framing this lack of lacunae as problem, it may be the key to its success. That is, the popularity and persistence of Canada’s multiculturalism may reflect its amorphous (even vacuous) quality in never saying what it means, or meaning what it says, thus allowing Canadians to project on to the larger screen whatever meaning they prefer. To the degree that Canadian multiculturalism is marred with polite fictions that mask hypocrisies, hidden agendas, and double talk, it may be useful to frame an official multiculturalism as a “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”. It goes without saying that debates over the riddle/mystery/enigma nexus of an official multiculturalism – does it meaning anything (riddle), does it work and how do we find out (mystery), and has it made any difference (enigma) – are likely to intensify in response to the dynamics and demands of a postmulticultural Canada. The book concludes accordingly. In light of contested challenges and sharp disagreements in the governance of complex diversities, time will tell if a multiculturalism 2.0 possesses sufficient staying power to last another 50 years.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".