PROBLEMATIZATION OF ETHNIC CONTEXT AND SOCIO-POLITICAL CASES OF MULTICULTURALISM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article discusses the problems that have arisen during the implementation of the policy of multiculturalism in countries with a multinational population of Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. In these states, there are successful cases of interaction between state institutions and ethnic minorities. The ethnopolitics of such multinational states is aimed at expanding the rights of ethnic minorities and their inclusion in the political process. Such a policy is based on the concept of multiculturalism and assumes the equality of ethnic minorities in the cultural environment of the dominant ethnic majority, realizes the idea of equality of people in all socio-political spheres. Multiculturalism is becoming the basis of public policy, as it integrates, adapts the minority and majority in a single community, while emphasizing and preserving ethnic, linguistic and religious identity. In the course of the multiculturalism policy, the prerequisites for the formation of the legal field of its development are created. The authors identify four key socio-political cases of multiculturalism: Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the countries of the Scandinavian Peninsula, which reflect the current results of multiculturalism policy. The article notes the fact that in relation to "indigenous peoples" the multiculturalism policy of these countries consolidates the official status of the ethnic minority and the language of indigenous peoples within the framework of the main state legislative acts. In the policy of multiculturalism, in the vast majority of countries represented in cases, the ethnic minority is given not only national-territorial, cultural autonomy, but also the opportunity to form ethnic representations included in state representative bodies of power. It is suggested that for multinational Russia, the model of multicultural development is the most appropriate.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".