MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4286488969 · doi:10.17918/00001143

A comparative study of the United States and Canada

2022· dissertation· en· W4286488969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceReactionaryPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Intervention (counseling)IncentiveFederal budgetFederalismPublic administrationPolitical economySociologyPsychologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States has taken a largely hands-off approach to federal cultural support throughout history. Compared to other countries, the U.S. has played an indirect role in its support systems, favoring methods like tax incentives over direct financial support. When it comes to the history of federal cultural policies, the U.S. has experienced heightened periods of support and attacks on what the level of federal intervention should be. There are trends of heightened periods of support occurring during economic or social crisis moments and used as an additive tool to another issue. Culture support in the U.S. has largely been a reactionary response to other issues. However, in the wake of a global pandemic and renewed racial justice movements, some are looking to see how our nation can think progressively about its engagement with the people. The U.S. plays a rather indirect role in federal involvement with the arts and cultural sector. However, as the last two years have highlighted, many inequitable and structural practices leave many in the sector unable to pursue creative careers without more federal intervention. Similarly, while there is still current bi-partisan support for arts and culture support in Congress, there is still a level of unease about the support and longevity of the support. Currently, federal support is minimal and primarily tied to relatively small-budget quasi-government granting agencies that practice federalism. Similarly, there is a level of mistrust of continued long-lasting support because of an increasingly partisan political environment coupled with governments lacking acknowledgment of the impact and validity the sector and its practitioner have in the country. By examining the historical and current rationales behind federal cultural policy involvement between Canada and the United States, this study aimed to understand and explore the feasibility of policy adaptability from Canada to the U.S. Through interviews with Canadian and American cultural policy scholars and advocates, this study explored current federal intervention rationale, calls for change, political attitudes, and equity in policy in each nation. By the end of the study, federal intervention at the federal level in Canada was outlined as a strong desire for Canadian choices for Canadians. Historically rationale was and still is largely centered around cultivating and protecting Canadian identity separate from its English roots and American neighbors. On the contrary, the American rationale for intervention appeared to be less concrete than Canada. For example, several rationale points were made that culture was good for a community and served economic benefits. However, policies did not reflect those ideas as clearly as Canadian policies reflected their rationales. American calls for change were more expansive and numerous, calling for increased communication and awareness of the sector's impact on the nation and how other policies impact the field. When it came to looking at the adaptability of policies from Canada to the U.S., adaptability seemed dismal because of Canada's general political acceptance and reasoning towards government intervention compared to the U.S. However, policy convergence may still be possible. Referenced by both Canadians and Americans, Canada's work with its indigenous populations was presented as an avenue for further study. The American participants were much more focused on change that made sense for American issues rather than focus on cultural policies or federal structures that could be transferred from Canada to the U.S. As a result, the U.S. is primed to be in a period of progressive change to look holistically at the how the sector can be interwoven throughout the federal government and how it has a place as an economic tool to benefit communities across the nation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.016
Science and technology studies0.0160.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→