"An agreement to differ" – culture, language and cultural diversity in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A complex triangular set of cultural, linguistic, political, social and economic partnerships and rivalries among Indigenous, English and French Canadians has shaped Canada’s development and how Canadians view themselves. The balancing act necessary to make the country work has made it more open to immigration than most other nations in the world but has also fostered a sense of fragility and of uncertain identity, particularly in the face of American mass culture. Cultural policies aimed at promoting and protecting diverse forms of culture expression have shaped not only Canada’s internal history but also its attitudes towards cultural diversity at the international level. Building on seminal work by Québec and France in the 1990s, Canada took a leading role in a core group of countries that proposed the idea of a convention on cultural diversity to UNESCO in 2003. The primary motivations for Canada were to “clarify the legitimacy in international law of the extensive array of measures it has adopted to protect its cultural industries” and “to ensure access for its cultural goods and services to foreign markets” (Smith 2007: 30) but concerns about identity were never far from the surface. This chapter uses the concept of “public action instruments” (PAIs) as developed by Saint-Pierre and Couture Gagnon to trace the arc of Canadian cultural policies in support of diversity both before and after the adoption of the Convention for the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions . It will argue that for Canada, the twin imperatives of survival and interdependence not only influenced its actions after the Convention came into force but also served as the platform upon which it based its campaign to bring the Convention into being.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.042 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".