Discourse analysis of multiculturalism and migration in Canada and Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this thesis is to assess how the discoursesof migration and multiculturalism arebeendepicted in the Finnish and Canadian policy documents. This was assessed by using the concept of governmentality and multiculturalism as the theoretical framework of the study. The concept of governmentality was used as a background to examine and interpret power relations and discourses in the data and how they influence contemporarydebate in these societies. The result was analysedqualitatively using theoretical –discourse analysis. And the analysis of the study was mainly based on the integration policy documents from Finland and Canada. The result of the study indicated that both Canada and Finland seeksto convert the adverseeffect of migration into a resource for socio-economic development that seeks to promote and protect the continued evolution of these countries. The results show that multiculturalism in Canada is constitutionally recognisedas national identity and heritage which represent multiculturalism as the same or part of cultural sustainability. While in Finland, multiculturalism as a public policy is an ongoing debate within the public domain. Some segment of the Finnish population thinks multiculturalism is a threat to national culture or monoculturalism which also serve as a component of cultural sustainability whilethe national policy presents multiculturalismas the best societal condition to withstand the effectsof diversity. The results also presented integration and multiculturalism asafundamentalrightfor both migrants and citizens. And it reaffirms the claim thatmulticulturalism produces identity. iiiIn addition, the study concludes that the magnitude at which multiculturalism is changing Finnish and Canadian societies can be visible and measured based on its impacts on the discoursesof education and creativity, civil society and fundamental right. The study recommends a future research in a larger scale to ascertain the impact ofmulticulturalism on cultural sustainability. Thisresearch also encounters numerous limitations which include; time constraint, language barriersand complexity of obtaining and analysingpolicy documents.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".