The Multi-Etnik Community Integration Model in Bali: Pholosphical Base and Proto Multiculturalism in Balinese Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethnic conflicts that occurred in various regions in Indonesia did not occur in Bali Province. There is a set of values that are used as the basis for building unity in diversity. These values are crossed and cut, so they can be used as shared values and unifying values. This research aims at describing the integration of multicultural society’s shared place of worship and the integration of multicultural society in traditional organizations in Bali Province. This study used a qualitative approach, which described the integration model of Balinese multicultural society based on etic and emic perspectives. The research instruments used were interview guidelines, observation guidelines, and documentation study guidelines. The integration model of multicultural communities in Bali is developed on religious activities through the construction of a shared place of worship in one area, with temples and musholla. In the social life, A multi-ethnic community established common traditional organizations such as Pecalang and Subak which protect all people. The establishment of multicultural society integration in Bali is due to the shared values that are believed by the multi-ethnic community and the existence of traditional cross-cutting organizations. The shared values are used as guidelines for living together in religious, social and cultural activities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".