Multiculturalism Policy in Canada: Exploring the Dispute with Québec through Framing Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiculturalism has been an official federal government policy in Canada since 1971 and is strongly associated with the country. However, from its inception, it has been met with strong criticism and opposition in the predominantly French-speaking province of Québec. While the long history of French-English conflicts in Canada has been explored, there is a paucity of comprehensive literature that focuses on the resurgence of this particular dispute in the last decade. This period includes Québec's adoption of several new, high profile, and controversial policies and laws that mark a rejection of the federal policy. To help fill this gap, and develop a more specific and contemporary description of this dispute, this paper uses frame analysis as a lens through which to examine a range of sources including news articles, government documents, press releases, speeches and interviews. Through this analysis six frames used by federal and provincial actors are identified and discussed: "Unique Cultural Preservation", "Québecois as Dominant Culture" and "Provincial Autonomy" on one side; and "Cultural Diversity and Pluralism", "Accommodation" and "National Unity" on the other. The findings reveal that the dispute is rooted in a historic struggle for power between the province and the federal government...
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".