MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1523502704

LA POLITICA DEL RICONOSCIMENTO SOCIALE: IL CONTRIBUTO DI CHARLES TAYLOR

2010· article· it· W1523502704 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Matteo Sanfilippo

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLegal and Labor Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OxfordMcGill UniversityHarvard UniversityPrinceton University
KeywordsMulticulturalismHumanitiesContext (archaeology)InterculturalityPoliticsSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonostante il collegamento spesso fatto fra l’idea di multiculturalismo e la filosofia di Charles Taylor, quest’ultimo non soltanto non ha mai accettato le proposizioni multiculturali, ma ha anche suggerito un diverso modo di correlare le comunità immigrate e le società ospiti. La sua posizione non è comunque comprensibile, se non viene calata nel contesto della sua analisi del contrasto fra Canada e Québec. Parole chiave: Multiculturalismo; Interculturalismo; Società ospiti; Comunità immigrate; Politica del riconoscimento Despite the constant connection made between the idea of multiculturalism and the philosophy of Charles Taylor, this last one not only has never accepted the multicultural proposal, but also suggested a different manner to connect the migrant communities and the receiving societies. His position cannot be properly comprehended if it is not put in the context of his analysis of the contrasts between Canada and Quebec. Keywords: Multiculturalism; Interculturality; Receiving societies; Immigrant communities; Recognition politics

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicLegal and Labor StudiesFrench-language works237,207