La construction de l'identité : de l'interculturalité à l'interculturel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ma principale preoccupation est la formation de l'identite dans une societe qui s'internationalise. Comment preserver ses propres specificites? a l'heure europeenne, comment toutes les actions legitimes quant a la preservation des cultures minoritaires ne soient pas traduites exclusivement a travers les notions de nationalisme ou de communautarisme? l'interculturel se presente theoriquement commel'une des cles a ce veritable dilemme. Alors qu'il tente de briller en faisant de l'ombre au concept du multiculturalisme, il apparait comme l'une de ses consoeurs, dans la mesure ou ils ont a l'origine les memes buts : le respect de l'autre. Seule la maniere de tendre vers ce respect diverge. En effet, l'interculturel presuppose l'echange, le contact, le melange ; le multiculturalisme, s'appuie davantage sur une co-existence. Alors que nous n'osons pas nous l'avouer, la france est plus une societe multiculturelle, et lorsqu'une quelconque entite interculturelle apparait, son approche educative (education interculturelle) n'a plus raison d'etre. Trois cas sont pris en compte : les antillais dont la culture est issue d'un processus de creolisation (interculturalite), les metis et le couplemixte qui se creent leur propre espace interculturel l'etude se portera sur la nature de. Ce contact pour tenter de savoir si ce que l'on voit de l'exterieur (l'interculturel) est reellement ce qui se passe a l'interieur (rapport de domination, conflits, abandon de certaines pratiques,. . . ).
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".