La médiation interculturelle vue à travers le schéma de la communication pour favoriser l’intégration des immigrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans l’objectif d’inclure les communautes culturelles a sa societe, le Quebec, se differenciant du Canada, preconise le modele interculturel de gestion du pluralisme. Ce modele comporte des lacunes sur le plan de l’integration pouvant etre expliquees par des obstacles communicationnels interculturels. Pour comprendre l’origine et les repercussions de ces obstacles situes dans la zone d’incomprehensions qui nuisent a l’integration sociale, le modele de la communication interpersonnelle de DeVito, Vezeau et Chassee (2008) est utilise. Pour illustrer notre contribution theorique, l’approche employee est celle de l’analyse conceptuelle pour « faire apparaitre du sens » (Gohier, 1998, p. 279) afin de comprendre les lacunes du modele interculturel. Pour attenuer, voire enrayer ces obstacles, un nouvel element est insere au modele : celui de la mediation interculturelle, comme regulateur des relations sociales par la communication interculturelle, afin de favoriser l’acceptation et surtout la comprehension de la difference pour le « vivre ensemble ». To include cultural communities in its society , the province of Quebec is endorsing an intercultural model, differentiating itself from Canada. However, this model does not seem to provide the necessary support to foster an inclusive society. Based on the interpersonal communication model of DeVito, Vezeau and Chasse (2008) a zone of misunderstandings is identified. This article seeks to understand the origin and impacts of communication obstacles that impede social integration. To illustrate the contribution of this theoretical research, the conceptual analysis approach is used to bring sense to evidence (Gohier, 1998) and expose the intercultural model’s shortcomings. To diminish or eliminate these barriers, a new element is added to the model: the intercultural mediation. This practice is seen as a life regulator to improve intercultural relations by intercultural communication. In addition, it will promote an acceptance and understanding of the above differences to the « vivre ensemble » promoted by Quebec intercultural model.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".