University students’ metaphors for Canadian multiculturalism: Diverse perceptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the beliefs of university students at a university in Canada regarding multiculturalism and multicultural society, through examining the metaphors they use to talk about these concepts. We interviewed 50 students about their perceptions and experiences of multiculturalism in Canada and then asked them to explain their choice of metaphors. Many of the metaphors could be grouped under more general metaphor themes, such as a multicultural society is a varied multicomponent piece of art/craft (comprising, e.g., mosaic and tapestry metaphors) and multicultural society is a container to mix things (comprising, e.g., melting pot and salad bowl metaphors ) . According to the literature, the former theme is compatible with the view that multiculturalism involves integration while preserving diversity, whereas the latter is associated with the notion of assimilation. Canadian students appeared to be more inclined than international students to use the (positive) varied multicomponent piece of art/craft theme relative to the other metaphors in the total data set. The interview data also revealed marked differences among participants as regards their awareness of metaphor but prompting them to reflect on their choice of metaphors often had an awareness‐raising effect.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".