Social Construction on Cultural Multiculturalism
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 states that the face of Indonesia as pluralism without multiculturalism. Until now the problem of multiculturalism has become something that must be kept alive in an attempt to minimize the incidence of national disintegration. Winter tried to rethink multiculturalism by taking a lesson from Canada, that Canada has experienced setbacks in implementing the work program of multiculturalism. While Pakulski looks at the implementation of multiculturalism policy program in Australia as a blur. Scuzzarello, with optimism, invites to care about multiculturalism and share power on different communities. Gozdecka (et al), in recent years after the multicultural declared, stated that it is 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. As a result, the construction of the community regarding multiculturalism: they consider themselves as the brother. In addition they also describe that: (a) assert one's cultural identity, study and assess the cultural heritage of a person; (b) respect and desire to understand and to learn about (and from) cultures besides their culture; (c) assessing and were delighted with the difference in the culture itself, which saw that the presence of groups from different cultures in the community as a positive thing to be respected and maintained. The harmony was found both in everyday lives, especially in the Religious and National holidays, for example, Eid Al-Fitr, Vesak, Christmas, and others religious holiday. Other examples, it also happens during the commemoration of National Holiday such as the Independence Day, the Youth Pledge Day, and the others. DOI: 10.17977/um022v3i12018p059
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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.099 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".