Leadership, Governance and the Politics of Identity in Canada.” Paper presented at the “Ethnocultural, Racial, Religious, and Linguistic Diversity and Identity Seminar,” organized by the Department of Canadian Heritage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Available on-line at www.metropolis.net The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Canadian Heritage. 2Introduction Leadership is a function of the input an individual can make into the community's capacity for concerted action, into the total power of the community in relation to the problems and opportunities it encounters (Breton, 1991). The strength of communal expressions of identity very often depends upon the extent to which a group is able to mobilize persons around shared interests and objectives. Those charged with defining and implementing a community's agenda play a decisive role in shaping such objectives. Understanding the process by which leaders emerge can provide valuable insights into institutional life and the manner in which a community sets its agenda and establishes priorities. Leadership can thus significantly influence identity formation and the vitality of the community. Moreover, the ability to retain and recruit effective leaders can be an important source of group persistence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".