Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to disseminate the results of the study and get feedback about the "Social construction on Multiculturalism". Five years ago, Ahimsa Putra (2011) stated that Indonesia adopted pluralism without multiculturalism. Until now the issue of multiculturalism has become something that must be kept alive in an attempt to minimize the incidence of national disintegration. Winter (2015) tried to rethink multiculturalism by taking a lesson from Canada, where the people experienced setbacks in implementing the work program of multiculturalism. While Pakulski (2014) considered the implementation of multiculturalism policy program in Australia as a blur, Scuzzarello (2015), optimistically invited to care about multiculturalism and re power sharing on different communities. Gozdecka et al. (2014), in recent years after multiculturalism was declared, stated that it was a failure both in Europe and in Anglophone West. This study was conducted in Blitar, using a qualitative approach to data collection methods and also interviews with ten informants. The result showed that the community was concerned with the existence of multiculturalism; they considered themselves as ‘brother’. In addition, they described that: (a) asserting one's cultural identity, studying and assessing the cultural heritage of a person is important; (b) respecting and having a desire to understand and learn about (and from) other cultures is useful; (c) being always delighted with the presence of different cultures in the community, and considering it as a positive thing to be respected and maintained is crucial. The harmony was found in everyday lives, especially in the Religious and National holidays, for example Eid Al-Fitr, Vesak, Christmas, and other religious holidays. Also, it could be seen during the Commemoration of National Holiday such as the Independence Day and the Youth Pledge Day. Keywords: social construction, pluralism, multiculturalism, Indonesia.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".