Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term "multicultural" and its associated "-ism" have been the focus of many debates in literary, educational, political, and sociological circles since the terms were coined. "Multicultural" first appeared in the New York Herald Tribune in 1941: "A fervent sermon against nationalism, national prejudice and behavior in favor of a 'multicultural' way of life" (Oxford English Dictionary [OED]). The second usage, in 1959 by the New York Times, both narrows and broadens the definition by connecting a culturally diverse city to cosmopolitanism. In 1965, the adjective "multiculturalism" expanded into the noun "multiculturalism" in the Preliminary Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism: "The answer they often gave was 'multiculturalism' or, more elaborately, 'the Canadian mosaic" (OED). The first three usages of the term "multiculturalism" offered in the OED relate to North American society, but the fourth, from a 1973 edition of Scotland's Stornoway Gazette, demonstrates the term's potential to migrate into any society in which diversity is of primary importance to its cultural narrative: "A Gaelis Society that has outgrown its original meeting place in just a few short years and enabled the Gaels to meet the new and promising challenge of Multiculturalism". The final two usages represent some of the controversies associated with the term. A 1988 Courier-Mail (Brisbane) story cites "Professor Blainey's claim that multi-culturalism is another name for ethnic discrimination," and a 1990 Marxism Today article notes that the "policy of multiculturalism... had been widely adopted as a more tolerant way forward than full integration into a 'British way of life'."
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.161 | 0.064 |
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".