Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to develop the argument that it is time for a national roundtable negotiation among Indigenous peoples, the two English and French settler nations, the BIPOC communities and the various immigrant groups to consider the merits of cosmopolitanism as a moral and cultural framework of our interrelated relationships and intercultural encounters in Canada. In an interdependent globalized world that is becoming “superdiverse,” I argue that it is time to shift from the language of “tolerance” of the “Other” to the language of “engagement” with “fellow human beings” guided by the moral and cultural cosmopolitanism for social and global justice, equality and equity, and inclusion through the fulfillment of human rights. The purpose of this public discussion is to urge the Canadian Council of Ministers of Education as well as the federal government to put this question on their agenda for consideration as a new framework for Canada’s educational, social, economic and political policies. This argumentative paper has the potential to benefit policymakers, curriculum designers, educators, and ministries of education across Canada and beyond to consolidate moral and cultural cosmopolitanism as a national and international approach to harmonious human coexistence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".