Cosmopolitanism, Culture and Well-Being: A Cosmopolitan Perspective on Multiculturalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, a number of thinkers have argued that members of minority cultures are entitled to special protection. All modern political societies comprise a plurality of different cultures and, in many cases, members of minority cultures have argued that they should receive group rights in order to recognize and protect their cultural identity. Thus, we encounter demands for independence for Quebec, for self-determination for Shia and Kurds in Iraq, for girls to be allowed to wear the hijab in school, for women to wear the niqab at work, for minority languages to receive official support and be taught in schools, and for national minorities to have their own television channels. We have, moreover, encountered arguments for Sikhs to be exempted from wearing crash-helmets, for religious communities to be exempt from rules on animal slaughter, for state funding of faith schools to teach children the religion their parents endorse, for restrictions on freedom of expression when the exercise of that freedom offends others (or incites them to religious hatred), and for indigenous peoples to continue to inhabit their traditional homelands. These kinds of proposals, of course, vary enormously but underlying all of them is a belief that the practices of cultural minorities merit protection.KeywordsDistributive JusticePolitical CultureEthical CultureMinority CultureEthical ViewThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".