MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403148320 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhae222

Franca Iacovetta. <i>Before Official Multiculturalism: Women’s Pluralism in Toronto, 1950s–1970s</i>.

2024· article· en· W4403148320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eileen Boris

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismPluralism (philosophy)Political scienceGender studiesSociologyMedia studiesLawPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1971, Canada adopted a multiculturalism policy to acknowledge cultural diversity within a bilingual system. In contrast to the melting-pot ideology of the United States, its liberal pluralism promoted ethnic distinctions to strengthen national citizenship through the image of the immigrant mosaic. Unlike contemporary Western Europe, Canadian multiculturalism served less as a form of containment and surveillance than assimilation through recognition. In this theoretically sophisticated and densely packed account, feminist scholar Franca Iacovetta offers a more expansive chronology by returning to the post–World War II years, when Western and Eastern European refugees entered in growing numbers and Cold War anti-Communism shaped their reception. Her case study of the International Institute of Metropolitan Toronto (1952–1972) highlights the power of its women staff and volunteers in forging multiculturalism as an idea and an experience before it became official policy. Against a scholarship that slams such institutions as either agents of social control and the commodification of culture or as humanitarian alternatives to exclusion and coercive assimilation, Iacovetta complicates the institute project. She does so without condemning the efforts of those who sought to improve the lives of Poles, Italians, Greeks, Portuguese, and others who settled in Toronto, the city that became Canada’s financial and multiethnic capital. She makes no excuses for the institute’s lacunae; she is quick to contextualize its European focus in light of an erasure of Indigenous peoples, neglect of Asian and Caribbean immigrants, and tensions over Quebecois. It is possible, she admits, that persistent lack of funding and then the demise of the institute, many of whose activities government agencies took over by the 1970s, accounts for its inability to serve later racialized immigrants. Nonetheless, she judges as “naïve, [its] ‘handicrafts and human rights,’ or’ multicultural spectacle as democratic internationalism’ approach to anti-racist work” (288).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207