Reading Multiculturalism in the United States and Canada: The Anthological vs the Cognitive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the differing meanings of multiculturalism in the United States and Canada, and how this difference affects multicultural readings of literary works that have implications for national identity. Although I argue that Canada has a longer tradition of multicultural reading than the United States, and that what the United States' academy is today calling multiculturalism may not be multiculturalism at all, it is not correct to read this paper as favouring one nation (or the reading practices of one nation) over the other. This argument is not an American or Canadian nationalist argument; rather, it is a North American comparatist one. It operates in a framework where American Studies is, as John Carlos Rowe puts it, `a comparatist discipline that will respect the many different social systems and cultural affiliations of the ``Americas" '; in this case, especially `how the many different Americas and Canada have historically influenced and interpreted each other' (Rowe, 13–14). Plural nations constantly face the foundational problem of whether they should persist as unified entities, or resolve themselves into their separate — and sometimes oppositional — constituent parts. This is something that American nations have in common; indeed, it is a fact that is constitutive of the very idea of `America.' To study it comparatively is not to advance the cause of national competition, but of international understanding. As Walter Benn Michaels explains in Our America, the problem for the United States is what to do when `confronted with the imminent possibility of dissolution: What makes the nation one nation? What makes Americans Americans?' (15). The same problem exists in Canada, a nation notorious for its ongoing drama of imminent dissolution.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".