CLAIMS MAKING AND POLICYMAKING IN STATE ANTI-RACISM IN ONTARIO CLAIMS MAKING AND POLICYMAKING IN STATE ANTI-RACISM IN ONTARIO: THE CASE OF THE ONTARIO ANTI-RACISM SECRETARIAT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
iii This dissertation offers a critical analysis of State Anti-Racism in Ontario, Canada, from 1990- 1995. Particular attention is paid to the politics surrounding the emergence and operation of a dedicated provincial agency- the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat (OARS). The study highlights the central role of social problems work and claims making in the determination of anti-racism policy. The emergence of state anti-racism is accounted for in terms of the relationship between the state and ethno-racial community groups, strategic events associated with the politicization of racial inequality, the ideological orientation of the ruling political party, and changing demographic composition of Ontario. The study demonstrates that social democratic political ideals reflected in government, in conjunction with high-profile strategic events and sustained pressure from ethno-racially based advocacy groups produced the conditions conducive to the emergence and acceleration of state anti-racism initiatives.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".