Assessing the future of multiculturalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
or Mark Twain, dispelling the rumours of his demise was relatively simple; in the case of multiculturalism, the matter is somewhat more complex.That multiculturalism is suffering an ongoing crisis of legitimation seems incontestable.Depending upon the specifics of national context and historical time period, examples abound of the supposed failings of, and pessimistic prognoses regarding, multiculturalism-from Angela Merkel's 2010 pronouncement that Multikulti ist tot ("multiculturalism is dead") to a string of recent electoral victories for parties and politicians that place the putative goals of multiculturalism in conflict with the majoritarian cultures of nation-states.The contestation is not limited to the right wing of the political spectrum.While rarely supported by broadbased electoral majorities, left-wing and progressive critics of multiculturalism have succeeded in advancing concepts and movements-separatism, decolonization, diversity, anti-racism, Indigenization, etc.-that offer alternative approaches to cultural recognition that are frequently valued precisely because they are not state-led.As an example: in Canada, a recent Environics Institute poll indicated that 58 percent of Canadians believe that Canada currently accepts too many immigrants (Neuman, 2024).Although this is not a direct critique of multiculturalism, it suggests a softening of one of the key achievements of multiculturalism-the positive perception of immigrants.Despite these and many other indicators suggesting that we are "beyond" multiculturalism (Alibhai-Brown, 2004) or that multiculturalism is in "retreat" (Joppke, 2004) or in "crisis" (Chin, 2017), there are reasons to believe that, as with Twain, the rumours of multiculturalism's death remain an exaggeration.
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 | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".