The Said and the Unsaid: The Intercultural Dynamics in Canada and Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faced with an increase in international migration and conflicts supposedly associated with migrating populations, ‘living together’ with people from different backgrounds has become a major issue in many countries. Relations with these people are often approached as a question of cultural diversity in political discourses, and this is specifically visible in Canada. The federal government adopted multiculturalism in 1971, as a model aiming at the integration of immigrants and their descendants, whereas the government of Quebec, despite its status as a province of Canada, rejected multiculturalism and has been seeking its own ways. Two integration models, Canada’s multiculturalism and Quebec’s interculturalism, are the objects of interest in this chapter. Rather than cover the historical evolution of these two integration models or the numerous critiques exerted upon them, this chapter tries to clarify certain limits, based on two concepts, ‘transculturation’ and ‘overdetermination’, which allow us to approach intercultural dynamics in their complexity. Precisely, in light of the concepts of ‘transculturation’ and ‘overdetermination,’ the place accorded to two issues, the possibility of transculturation and the economic dimension, will be analysed in the discourses of Canadian multiculturalism and Quebec interculturalism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".