MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049999838 · doi:10.1080/14675980500211808

Intercultural teaching in higher education

2005· article· en· W2049999838 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

VenueIntercultural Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterculturalismPedagogyMulticulturalismSociologyCurriculumMulticultural educationIntercultural relationsCultural pluralismPoliticsIntercultural competenceIntercultural communicationFocus (optics)Higher educationEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper I examine the difference between a multicultural curriculum and an intercultural one. I argue that such a distinction is important because it helps teachers in universities and colleges to move beyond the canon debate and its politics, and focus on the more fundamental task of fostering intercultural thinking. I assert here that interculturalism in teaching is not about covering multiple cultures; rather it is about working through a dialogue between cultures. A dialogue, of course, requires minimally a party of two. Once that requirement is satisfied, in my view the focus should then be on the dialogue itself rather than on the multiplicity of voices for the sake of inclusivity.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.353 · 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