MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6920502163 · doi:10.6082/uchicago.3145

For the Sake of Diversity: Ethnic-Minority Skilled Immigrants with Diversity and Inclusion Programs in Canada

2021· article· en· W6920502163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge@UChicago (University of Chicago) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)Cultural diversityImmigrationBureaucracyCommitEquity (law)MulticulturalismInclusion–exclusion principle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past 40 years, organizations have institutionalized diversity programs to commit to diversity discourse in society and employment equity legislations. Organizational and critical scholars have long argued the ineffectiveness of diversity and inclusion programs. The landscape of diversity and inclusion programs in Canada is unclear. Drawing on in-depth interviews, this study investigates the experience of ethnic-minority high-skilled immigrants with diversity programs in Canada. Diversity and inclusion programs are deliberate and dispensable for ethnic-minority immigrants. They have limited effect on immigrant integration but brings out the conflict between skills and identity, as well as creating boundary in the workplace. Diversity and inclusion programs become the tool for communication and business, which decouples diversity and inclusion practices from diversity policy and discourse. Finally, diversity and inclusion programs are bureaucratic ceremonies that hinders structural discrimination but celebrates legitimacy. Implications for reforming diversity programs are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge@UChicago (University of Chicago)Same topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207