Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent Korean society is rapidly being changed to a multicultural society. The number of foreigners who stay in Korea amounts to over 1.44 millions at the end of 2012 due to influence of globalization, increase of international marriage, and inflow of foreign laborers. Thus, the necessity to build systematic multicultural policy in national level is coming to the fore. The purpose of this study is to seek the direction of establishing systematic multicultural policy in Korea society by analyzing international multicultural policy. Korea‘s multicultural policy shows its limitation that it cannot comprehensively solve dynamic and various desires, which happen in multicultural families like North Korean defectors, foreign students, refugees who are recently classified as multicultural families, being focused only on initial support and marriage migrants . This study compared multicultural policy of North America (Canada, U.S.), Europe (Germany, England, France), Australia, Asia (Japan, China) for comparison of international multicultural policies, and the result of the study is as follows. First, Canada in North Korea aims at multicultural model and well realizes multiculturalism. U.S. goes to the direction of accepting multiculture with attitude of cultural pluralism. A Europe country Germany is changing its direction from discrimination exclusion model to social integration policy, and England asserts peaceful coexistence through pluralism by turning its policy to cultural diversity and guarantee of equality in opportunity. France makes effort in order to remove sociocultural difference, though pursuing assimilation model. Australia realizes integrated policy while central government, local government, and various local social organizations perform their role, respectively with respect toward cultural diversity and suggestion of social equity. An Asia country Japan promotes a program by grass-roots citizen movement groups, not in central government level, under the concept of multiculture coexistence. In Korea duplication of central government-led top-down policy and service is a main flow. In the future Korea‘s multicultural policy should be for social integration re-established in systematic and effective way, with cooperation of central government, local autonomy organization, and private organiza
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
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".