Cross-Cultural Understandings in the Language and Politics of Friendship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Friendship is a frequently-used word but it is difficult to define it clearly. Friendship in its various configurations links people and communities together in some sort of reciprocally beneficial association that forms societies. Thus friendship is a concept that deserves attention. This paper examines some of the similarities and differences about understandings of friendship which both support and challenge traditional western perspectives. The article argues that an exploration of the experiences and interpretations of friendship outside the western philosophical tradition demonstrates a shared understanding about many aspects, but also some subtle differences which, while challenging some of the western concepts, can also be incorporated into developments of the idea of friendship. Key words: friendship, western philosophical tradition, cross-cultural understandings, language of friendship, socio-linguistic approach Resume: L’amitie est un mot frequemment utilise mais il est difficile de le definir clairement. L’amitie lie, dans ses diverses formes, les peuples et les communautes a une sorte d’association reciproquement benefique qui forme la societe. L’amitie est ainsi un concept qui merite l’attention. Le present article examine des similitudes et differences des comprehensions de ce mot, qui supporte et defie a la fois les perspectives occidentales traditionnelles. L’auteur argumente qu’une exploration des experiences et interpretations de l’amitie hors de la tradition philosophique occidentale montre une comprehension partagee sur beaucoup d’aspects, de plus, des differences subtiles qui, tout en defiant des concepts occidentaux, peuvent aussi etre integrees au developpement de l’idee d’amitie. Mots-cles: amitie, tradition philosophique occidentale, comprehension transculturelle, langage d’amitie, approche sociolinguistique
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".