A Diverse Minority of Intolerance: Ethnic Relations in a Multicultural Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study contributes to the international literature on ethnic relations and multiculturalism by empirically examining the claim that ethnic diversity can undermine social cohesion. The specific focus is on analyzing the attitudes of Canadians toward different ethnic groups to assess the level of ethnic intolerance. Canada serves as an ideal case study for this investigation due to the long-standing federal policy of multiculturalism. The multicultural we is an ideal, composed of many us which are opposed to others, all of which are themselves composed of individuals manifesting a heterogeneity of attitudes and opinions. By studying out-group attitudes, the study seeks to assess the viability of multiculturalism in addressing the challenges posed by ethnic diversity. The study has three primary objectives: firstly, to examine if the distribution of ethnic intolerance varies across different ethnic groups in Canada; secondly, to investigate whether Canadians perceive the Canadian mosaic in a vertical (hierarchical) or horizontal (egalitarian) manner, drawing from group position theory; and finally, to explore whether ethnic groups in Canada hold their own subjective group position hierarchies distinct from the national average. To achieve these objectives, the paper conducts an original quantitative analysis of the 2014 Provincial Diversity Project Survey.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".