Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The year 2021 represents the 50th anniversary of the adoption of multiculturalism in Canada. Clearly, multiculturalism policy has stood the test of time. However, more than sheer longevity is involved. In programmatic terms, multiculturalism has advanced the goals that animated its introduction in 1971. It has helped to change the terms of integration for immigrant communities, laying to rest ideas of assimilation, and creating space for minorities to maintain and celebrate aspects of their culture and traditions while participating in the mainstream of Canadian life. In addition, multiculturalism has been part of a broad state-led redefinition of national identity, helping to build a more inclusive sense of nationalism. Judged by these original goals, the multiculturalism program has met with considerable success. However, multiculturalism has limits. It has not eliminated racial inequality, and the commitment to diversity seems fragile at times, most recently in the case of Muslims. In addition, multiculturalism has been a conflicted political success. The policy is not embedded in a comprehensive political consensus, and potent political challenges have emerged in the name of social conservatism and Québec nationalism. Nonetheless, the policy has had sufficient political support to survive at the national level for half a century. In effect, multiculturalism is a case of conflicted political success and resilient program success. Moreover, judged by the experience of democratic countries generally, Canadian multiculturalism seems even more successful. Perhaps most importantly, the policy has arguably helped to forestall the type of anti-immigrant backlash we have seen elsewhere.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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.
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".