MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4237270837 · doi:10.1515/9783839435410-007

6. Dionne Brand’s Toronto, What We All Long For

2016· book-chapter· en· W4237270837 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuetranscript Verlag eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diversity, Our Strength' is the motto for which the global city of Toronto has become recognized and celebrated (Lo 2008: 122).This distinguishing slogan has come a long way from the once WASP-dominated 'Toronto, the Good' (Rosenthal 2011: 32).In the past 30 years, Toronto has transformed from an almost "exclusively white enclave" (Troper 2003: 20) to the immigrant city and role model of social integration it is today.Canadians are proud of Toronto and attempt to cross-sell this form of cultural diversity to different cities all over the world because this model of integration can function as a best practice for other countries and help promote prosperity (Kymlicka 1998: 3).The unique official government policy partially explains how Toronto has rapidly changed into the multicultural setting of today (Siemiatycki et al 2001: 1): indeed, "the World in a City" (Rosenthal 2011: 32).To fully grasp Toronto's evolution, the city's immigration story needs to be examined.Essentially, Toronto's population has changed from a homogenous to a heterogeneous one.Until the early twentieth century, Toronto's population consisted mainly of those of British descent (Siemiatycki et al 2001: 1).Between 1931 and 1996 however, the percentage of immigrants of British descent declined from 81 percent to just 16 percent (Siemiatycki et al 2001: 373) as the city grew in size and immigration policies were relaxed.Since the 1970s, for example, the percentage of immigrants from Asia and the Pacific as well as Africa and the Middle East has grown steadily.This growth is largely due to the 1976 Immigration Act aimed at the reunion of Canadian immigrant families, fostering of the Canadian economy, and supporting refugees and diasporas (Jansen et al 2003: 66f.).By the 1980s, Toronto's image had transformed into a culturally tolerant cosmopolitan city of 'polyethnic character' (Harney 1983: 1) of "a remarkably diverse ethnic, racial, linguistic and religious metropolis" (Siemiatycki et al 2001: 1).Toronto's strength is its diversity (Siemiatycki et al 2001: 454).Each year, Toronto attracts an average of 70,000 immigrants from close to 170 countries, and, as a result, more than one hundred languages are spoken in the city (Anisef et al 2003: 3f.).Between 1995 and 2001, Toronto was mainly shaped by Asian and Caribbean immigrants (Hoernig et al 2010: 155).Currently, the three largest ethnic groups in Toronto are Chinese (an estimated 450,000), Italians (an estimated 400,000), and Afro-Caribbean (an estimated 250,000) with Vietnamese immigrants making up one of the fastest-growing ethnic groups (Troper 2003: 20).Toronto is described as Canada's preeminent global city.In the Census Metropolitan Area, it features both Canada's highest rate of foreign-born population in 2006 (46.6 percent) and the highest rate of recent immigrants arriving between 1996 and 2006 (15.8 percent) (Langlois 2010: 448f.):448f.).Almost 50 percent of Toronto's inhabitants are thus foreign-born, highlighting the city's unique trait as a cultural hub and a so-called 'gateway city' for immigrants and transmigration.In contrast, in 1996, both New York and Los Angeles featured a smaller foreignborn population of 23 percent and 31 percent, respectively (Anisef et al 2003: 3).However, unlike those two North American cities, the Canadian metropolis has been largely disregarded in studies on urban complexity.Toronto is considered to be Canada's only global city (Hall 2010: 63).In 1986, it was the only Canadian city featured in Friedmann's classification of world cities and was categorized as second tier (1986).Nearly twenty years later, Taylor (2005) similarly considers Toronto an 'incipient' (Hall 2010: 63) leading world city of second class, following global cities such as New York and Los Angeles.In both studies, Toronto is in the same category as the North American cities of Miami and San Francisco.The city is ranked thirty-sixth in population and twentieth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP).Overall, it is ranked fourteenth in the recent Global Cities Index Methodology 2010 31 .Toronto is viewed as the Canadian 'high-connectivity gateway' (Taylor et al 2002; Taylor 2004: 92) in terms of economy, capital, and business locations.It is 31 The data used for the Global Cities Index Methodology is collected, analyzed, and evaluated by Foreign Policy, A.T. Kearney, and The Chicago Council of Global Affairs, taking various issues into account, such as business activity, human capital, information exchange and access to information, cultural experience, and their influence on global discourses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.241 · 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