The Integrated Capabilities Framework: Exploring Multiculturalism and Human Well-Being in Participatory Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, Clark and Hodgett develop a framework and methodology for investigating human well-being in multicultural settings. They consider the various insights that the capability, livelihoods and chronic poverty approaches can offer before building on them to develop an ‘Integrated Capability Approach’ (ICF) that seeks to combine their virtues. Like the capability approach, the ICF is a flexible framework that can be applied to different issues through a variety of participatory methods. The ICF is used to develop a series of open-ended fieldwork questions partly inspired by Clark’s studies of human values. These questions are designed to explore the values, expectations and actual experiences of different people and ethnic groups. To illustrate one way of making the approach operational, the fieldwork questions are applied through 15 ethnographic interviews conducted in Canada. Although no attempt is made to draw policy conclusions (given the limited number of interviews), the fieldwork results do illustrate several unique features of the ICF that help make it a highly effective tool for guiding policy and practice. Amongst other things, the ICF embraces multidimensionality, allows for cultural diversity and difference, recognizes that well-being is a dynamic process and encourages more pragmatic and efficient policy responses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".