Intercultural Conflict and Mediation: An Intergroup Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the role of components of intercultural competence in the use of intercultural mediation behaviors. Through the use of the Revised Intercultural Mediation Measure, an instrument revised by the authors, 291 Anglophone and 161 Francophone participants in Canada were asked to indicate their likelihood of employing various mediation strategies to reduce a conflict between two linguistic groups. The results demonstrated that involvement as an intercultural mediator is likely to be initiated by individuals who are members of the same linguistic group as the perpetrator. By virtue of their xenophilic representations of the victimized group, these individuals take on the role of mediator to reduce tension. In contrast, participants from both linguistic groups were unlikely to become involved as a mediator when witnessing members of the in‐group being victimized. Furthermore, path analyses revealed that the use of mediation strategies when the in‐group was being discriminated against was, at most, limited to endorsing fewer avoidant mediation strategies. The findings are interpreted within the context of research on intergroup relations and discrimination.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".