Multiculturalism in the practice of landscape architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis investigates the extent to which multiculturalism is addressed in the practice of landscape architecture in Canada, and proposes recommendations to increase the incorporation of multiculturalism into the profession. In the first chapter, the theoretical underpinnings of multiculturalism are discussed and the term is defined for the purposes of the remainder of the investigation. This is followed by an examination of multiculturalism in the Canadian context, and how it has evolved over time. The thesis then addresses the question; ‘Why should landscape architects care about multiculturalism?’. Once the importance of multicultural issues to the profession of landscape architecture is demonstrated, the thesis turns to discovering how these issues are currently dealt with in the profession. This investigation takes the form of a survey on multiculturalism which was distributed to the Canadian Society of Landscape Architecture (CSLA) and its component associations, as well as seven other types of professional associations in an effort to solicit their strategies for responding to cultural diversity. The results are then compared and analysed before recommendations are made on how the profession of landscape architecture can better include multiculturalism into Canadian practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".