Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter Seven Making Multicultural Community at the InstituteIn 1961, Director Nell West boasted that the members who participated in the house programs of the International Institute of Metropolitan Toronto represented sixty different ethnic nationalities. 1 Most of those members were from Europe, though the subsequent arrival of immigrants from the Caribbean, East and South Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere did further diversify, albeit modestly, a multicultural community space whose non-white members initially consisted mainly of a small number of Chinese Canadians and Japanese Canadians.The staff of the Institute's Department of Group Services worked with the membership to run a daily roster of social, recreational, and educational programs intended to encourage identification with the Institute and its pluralist goals, promote intercultural dialogue, and foster a sense of collective belonging.The sponsored clubs and recreational activities were meant to encourage collaborative and democratic modes of organizing as well as to facilitate crosscultural friendships and forge self-regulated citizens.In this respect, the Toronto Institute was, to quote Bettina Bradbury and Tamara Myers, an "intermediate" space located at what Leonore Davidoff famously called "the ragged frontiers between the public and private." It was a site where everyday interactions occurred among a culturally diverse collection of social workers, newcomers, and Torontonians.A focus on the members' activities and their interactions with the staff permits an examination of the processes of group-identity formation and collective belonging, as well as matters involving personal agency and resistance to the regulatory features of social work practice.2 The membership differed with respect to class, education, age, marital status, and gender, though the majority of members, like most staffers, fit an urban middle-class profile.Eastern European men of professional origins were among the Institute's most active members and its loudest critics.Insofar as member/ staff interactions involved differently located actors negotiating hierarchal relations shaped by the agency's rules and broader social welfare policies, the
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.045 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.007 |
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".