MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7163009410 · doi:10.6082/3q16m-y6834

For the Sake of Diversity: Ethnic-Minority Skilled Immigrants with Diversity and Inclusion Programs in Canada

2021· article· en· W7163009410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aria Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Chicago · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Diversity (politics)Cultural diversityImmigrationBureaucracyCommit

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past 40 years, organizations have institutionalized diversity programs to commit to diversity discourse in society and employment equity legislations. Organizational and critical scholars have long argued the ineffectiveness of diversity and inclusion programs. The landscape of diversity and inclusion programs in Canada is unclear. Drawing on in-depth interviews, this study investigates the experience of ethnic-minority high-skilled immigrants with diversity programs in Canada. Diversity and inclusion programs are deliberate and dispensable for ethnic-minority immigrants. They have limited effect on immigrant integration but brings out the conflict between skills and identity, as well as creating boundary in the workplace. Diversity and inclusion programs become the tool for communication and business, which decouples diversity and inclusion practices from diversity policy and discourse. Finally, diversity and inclusion programs are bureaucratic ceremonies that hinders structural discrimination but celebrates legitimacy. Implications for reforming diversity programs are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0500.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.163 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of ChicagoSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207