The Multicultural History Society of Ontario and its Resources for Ethnic Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study will focus on the availability of research resources for ethnic studies through the creation and work of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario.This perspective is amply justified because the Society itself, and in particular its Research Resources Department for which the present author is immediately responsible, are indeed a major research resource for ethnic studies.The Multicultural History Society of Ontario was created in 1976 with a substantial one-time grant from what was then the Province of Ontario's WINTARIO funding programme.From this beginning, those responsible for the project, especially the founding Director and President, the late Robert F. Harney, sought to create a "well-catalogued archival and library collection of ethnocultural material" which would be open to both the general public and scholars.'The creation of this research facility was seen as "one of the first steps toward a province which recognized the variety of its historical records which help free people from ignorance of one another and dangerous dependence on stereotypes.""To this end the Society has pursued a general mandate to "preserve and record the province's immigrant and ethnic history."The foundation occurred in an atmosphere which was very well "primed" for the pursuit of multiculturalism as a national or provincial ideology.It followed, of course, from the work of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bimice
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
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".