MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2615927180

Tackling prejudice and engaging with religious minorities : how cities can make a difference with an intercultural cities approach.

2016· article· en· W2615927180 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDurham Research Online (Durham University) · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPrejudice (legal term)IslamophobiaHuman rightsPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)ConventionPopulationSociologySocial psychologyGender studiesPoliticsLawPsychologyGeography
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Prejudice and discrimination against people on the grounds of religion continues to be widespread, despite freedom of religious belief and expression being fundamental rights enshrined within the European Convention on Human Rights. Members of the Intercultural Cities Network have raised particular current concerns about rising levels of Islamophobia as well as the stigmatisation of other minority religions across many of their contexts. These concerns are arising in a changing social context where in Europe as a whole, there is a rise in those affiliated to no particular religious group, and after those who are Christian, Muslims are the largest religious minority, and this population is growing.1
\nThis briefing paper explores local policy responses to tackling prejudice and discrimination against religious minorities which are possible by adopting an intercultural approach. The foundation for this approach is acknowledging the rights of all individuals and groups, whether religious or not, under the European Convention on Human Rights. This approach is based on engaging positively with faith communities alongside those with other beliefs, including secular worldviews, for the purpose of building trust, cohesion and positive intercultural interactions within the city as a whole. It starts from the position of exploring how public discourse, policies, procedures and practices can have a significant impact in exacerbating and/or reducing experiences of prejudice and discrimination within local communities.
\nThe paper presents the findings from a two day event held on 27th to 28th October 2016 involving over 70 participants (+ 4 interpreters) hosted in Donostia/San Sebastián, Spain, as part of their programme of activities as the European Capital of Culture.2 The participants included representatives from local authority areas which are members of the Intercultural Cities Network across Europe, including those employed by these authorities and members of religious minorities from these contexts. There were also a smaller number of representatives from alternative contexts, including participants from Japan (with the support of the Japan Foundation, also represented), and from the intercultural cities of Fes and Rabat in Morocco, and Montreal, Canada. This paper also builds on previous engagement by the Intercultural Cities Network in exploring issues relating to ‘Faith in Intercultural Cities’ more widely. This has included a report exploring the importance of recognising the contribution of faith groups as part of local diversity, based on an event held in London in 20143, and a workshop on interfaith dialogue at the Intercultural Cities Milestone Event held in Dublin in 2013.
\nA wide range of potential ways of taking action to tackle prejudice and discrimination against religious minorities were identified by participants; this report summarises these, highlighting practical examples of these actions in the process. Participants frequently acknowledged that each particular response and example may have its own strengths and weaknesses, and be more appropriate in some contexts than others. Given this, it is important to match particular responses to particular issues within particular contexts, whilst in general recognising that adopting a combination of responses was important to ensure these issues were tackled in a concerted way. The focus in the following report is on reporting the participants’ perspectives as shared during the event, rather than wider research, so wider research has only been cited where this was included in their presentations; nevertheless, many of the perspectives cited here could be supported in terms of wider research, although that would require a separate paper.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,422
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,003
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,295
Écart entre enseignants0,243 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle