In-Group Bias and Inter-Group Dialogue in Canadian Multiculturalism
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
African-Canadians continue to bear the brunt of marginality and stereotyping in Canada even when various mitigating studies and programs have been initiated by the government at federal, state, and municipal levels. These stereotypes continue to affect them in informal settings and state institutions when seeking employment, housing or when in the streets, malls, schools, etc. While social justice advocates, social workers, and policy-makers focus on “Black-White” dynamics because other “racialized minorities” are also marginalized (though not equally) in Canada, it is important to note that “non-White” Canadians also contribute to the spread of historical stereotypes of African-Canadians within Canadian multiculturalism as noted in the emphasis of the city of Toronto’s mitigating strategies for “anti-Black racism.” Using social group position theory (SGPT) and asset-based model (ABCD), this paper argues that interrogating social group biases beyond “Black-White” binarism to encourage inter-group dialogs is important in making sure that different multicultural communities understand one another through favorable, activities-mediated, inter-group relations as opposed to having multicultural relations mediated by third parties, or not mediated at all. We also argue that African-Canadians should focus on internal strengths and only use external help to augment community initiatives to change the extant negative image.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it