MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011352007 · doi:10.1080/17449050903564845

Building Trust: Managing Common Past and Symbolic Public Spaces in Divided Societies

2010· article· en· W2011352007 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnopolitics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismCollective identityIdentity (music)PoliticsEthnic groupState (computer science)SociologyFunction (biology)Affect (linguistics)Social capitalSocial identity theoryPolitical economySocial psychologyCapital (architecture)Political scienceSocial groupSocial scienceAestheticsLawPsychologyAnthropologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

State- and nation-building historical policies clash with the perspectives of minorities. Negative group stereotypes affect the trust required for multicultural societies to function. How do groups mediate differences and cope with hate-prone interpretations of history? Linking the often separate literature on social capital, identity, ethnic conflicts and resolution, and on symbolic politics and historical reconciliation, this article develops a framework for intercommunity trust-building research. Observing controversies surrounding collective memories and memorials in Eastern Europe, it argues that integrative processes occur ‘from below’: when groups build mutual horizontal trust through common management of their shared past and landscapes; when the state participates, and does not impose.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.295 · 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