Managing Diversity in Federal Cultural Administrations: The Example of Heritage Canada and Library and Archives Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the 1980s, the Canadian federal public service has implemented employment equity legislation.1 However, the management of diversity in the workplace and its issues have undergone significant changes over the past 30 years.2 A recent 2021 directive from the Clerk of the Privy Council Office ordered that each department and agency have an accessibility, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) management strategy.3 What about the measures and strategies implemented by the federal administrations in relation to culture? Based on a field survey and institutional documentary sources, the article will deal with ADEI management at Heritage Canada and Library and Archives Canada. It will present some innovations in diversity management and put them in perspective with some recent developments in the mandate entrusted to these two institutions. It will thus highlight that the evolution of the mandate of a public cultural administration in favor of the audiences it serves can impact choices and strategies for both the employees and the organizational environment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".