The Last Standard-Bearers of Biculturalism: A Quebec-Ontario Comparison of Cosmopolitan, National, Subnational, and Local Affiliations among Official Language Minorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the popularity of the cosmopolitan idea of “postnationality” and multicultural concepts of citizenship, biculturalism continues to have a lasting impact upon Canadian institutions and group loyalties. This article constitutes the first empirical investigation of affiliations among the two largest official minority language groups in Canada, Anglo-Quebecers and Franco-Ontarians. Concurring with previous research, the study finds that organizational engagement predicts stronger socio-territorial affiliations. Furthermore, evidence shows that, Franco-Ontarians are 1) less likely to be cosmopolitan than Anglo-Quebecers, 2) about equally likely to be attached to the Canadian national identity as Anglo-Quebecers, 3) more likely to identify with their province than Anglo-Quebecers, and 4) more likely to have a strong affiliation with their local polity than Anglo-Quebecers. Taken together, the findings suggest that cosmopolitanism might work better for majorities than minorities, and as a consequence for Anglophones than Francophones even when the former are in a minority setting.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".