Bibliographic record
Abstract
In its appearances and its contemporary manifestation, the challenges provoked by the thrust of cultural identities have up to half a century of history. Since the 60s, it unveiled the broad social fragility and the problem of coexistence between cultures in democratic countries. This challenge has shacked the dictatorial, the authoritarian regimes, in particular when it alludes to the religious organizations, or national liberation groups. And it taps well our countries, under the shape of religious, nationalist movements, either still fights which recover from what we call indigenism. Faced with this challenge, we cannot formulate summary hypotheses. We are not any more at the beginning phase made by unknowns: we are engaged deeply in conflicts, tensions and transformations which we know already are not ephemeral .It does not obviously mean that their expressions are stabilized, or that their senses are fixed to the long term. To bring knowledge and more clarity on the nature of the problems in cause and on the way they are envisage in the public debate. We suggest analyzing in what the multiculturalism is a solution of the identical crises. Produce knowledge on the cultural differences, their production, their transformation and their reproduction; examine the problems which they generate in the social life, the meanings which they dress for the interested and for others; report their difficulties and their internal tensions: all is within the competence of the sociological analysis and requires as such specific theoretical and methodological tools. To return our coherent and practical work we are going to support our reflection with a case study, at least comparative between several multiculturalists’ models in particular French, American, Canadian and British. This exercise will allow us to kick away hypotheses which will be used as runway to the scientific community and to all society in the grip of the identical crises. However, the elaboration of a theoretical frame of the multiculturalists question stays a preliminary tool. As mentioned theoretical frame elaboration will serve as support of reflection .It will allow us to seize better the notion of the multiculturalism .it will include three main trunk dimensions which are: the Definition of the multiculturalism, the management of the multiculturalism and the identical tensions connected to the vertical and horizontal inheritances. According to Amnesty International multiculturalism is defined as a policy to maintain and to value the various cultures and the communities living within a society. It also implies fighting against the discriminations and promoting the whole and fair individuals participation and the communities of any origins to the social life. This definition brings to light the objectives of an ideal policy of the multiculturalism. We shall also retain of this definition which the multiculturalism can be understood under three approaches: sociological, institutional and ideological. The sociological approach is interested in the ethnic and cultural composition and interactions in the public area. It reports the facts state and the problem aroused by the intercultural relations. The institutional approach is more pragmatic, because it refers to the means of multiculturalism management: in the laws, in the policies, in the regulations, etc. The ideological approach recovers from the philosophic domain. It is the reflection which joins in reaction to the governmental policies about the multiculturalism management.
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 | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.093 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".