Bibliographic record
Abstract
This presentation is a part of a course at the basic level at Stockholm University. It is a course which was supported by the Centre for Canadian Studies of Stockholm University. The course is designed to introduce students to a variety of aspects related to the history, culture and literature of Canadian society. It also tackles the bilingual aspect of Canadian society and helps students to discuss issues that are relevant in Canada. The course then looks at the challenges facing Canada in the 21st Century with focus on immigration and multiculturalism, the First Nations, gender equality, specific regions in Canada with special emphasis on Québec, and Canada's cultural identity. In this lecture, the focus is on the comparison between the debates on the national narrative of Canada and the values expressed by Canadian citizens. If the national narrative is characterized by the myth of an open and multicultural society, the empirical analysis of the attitudes can give an accurate insight on the "values" of the citizens. With the help of the cross-cultural surveys (World Values Survey), the answers to some of the key questions (cultural diversity / immigration) can be compared with the attitudes of citizens in the United States to see if there is a form of integration of the "cultural model". <br> The document is published with a modification for the slide 12 of the presentation (update of the figures) in previous version below reference: doi.org/10.17045/sthlmuni.15329100.v1 . <br>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.057 | 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 teacher head, 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".