Multiculturalism versus ‘ <i>e pluribus unum</i> ’: Canadian-American differences or borderlands convergence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seymour Martin Lipset posits a ‘continental divide’ separating political value systems in Canada and the United States, attributing this to the two countries’ differing foundational experiences. Central to Lipset’s argument is the contrast that he draws between values respecting immigration and cultural diversity, a contrast captured in the metaphors, ‘mosaic’ and ‘melting pot’. Critics of Lipset’s thesis, such as Grabb and Curtis, argue that the pattern of cross-national value difference he identifies is entirely the result of the distinctiveness of the American South and Québec; Canadians and Americans living outside these regions constitute a single, homogeneous cultural unit. Advocates of the so-called ‘borderlands thesis’ suggest a convergence of values among populations living close to the Canada-US border. This article, based on a paired comparison of students at Brock University and the University at Buffalo, finds some support for the borderlands thesis as well as continuing Canada-US difference in some areas, though not always in line with Lipset’s arguments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".