L’interculturel comme paradigme de transgression par rapport au culturalisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A partir du constat de diversité culturelle, l’auteur tentera de démontrer que le concept de culture n’est plus approprié pour rendre compte de cette diversité. En effet, les cultures ne peuvent plus être appréhendées comme des entités indépendantes, hors de toute forme d’actualisation dans le social, le politique et le communicationnel. En situation de pluralité culturelle, ce sont surtout des fragments culturels qui sont significatifs et moins les cultures dans leur globalité. Le concept de culture est devenu inadéquat pour rendre compte de la complexité des métissages, des emprunts. L’auteur lui substitue la notion de culturalité qui renvoie au fait que les cultures sont mouvantes, alvéolaires et que ce sont les traces culturelles qui sont efficientes et non les structures. L’individu sélectionne les informations culturelles selon ses intérêts et les contraintes de la situation. La culture, comme la langue, est un lieu de mise en scène de soi et des autres. La notion de culturalité, par son aspect dynamique rend mieux compte de cette dynamique alors que le concept de culture reste trop marqué par une approche descriptive, adjectivante et catégorisante. Cross-cultural paradigm as compared to the infringement culturalism Abstract: From cultural diversity report, the author attempts to show that the concept of culture is no longer appropriate to reflect this diversity. Indeed, cultures can no longer be understood as independent entities, without any form of discount in the social, political and communicative. In situations of cultural pluralism, it is mainly cultural fragments that are meaningful and less crops in their entirety. The concept of culture has become inadequate to account for the complexity of interbreeding loans. The author substitutes the concept of culturalism which refers to the fact that cultures are fluid, alveolar and that it is the cultural traces that are efficient and not structures. The individual selects cultural information according to their interests and constraints of the situation. Culture, like language, is a place of staging of self and others. The notion of culturalism, with its dynamic appearance better reflects this dynamic, while the concept of culture is too marked by a descriptive approach that is adjectiving and categorizing.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".