MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121768518 · doi:10.25212/lfu.qzj.5.2.08

Minorities and the Theory of Recognition of Charles Taylor

2020· article· en· W3121768518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raad Abdul Jalil Ali, Najeeba Ibrahim Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueQalaai Zanist Scientific Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPoliticsSocial psychologyPsychologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research seeks to shed light on the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor's analysis on his theory regarding  recognition as well as to the condition  of minorities within the policy of cultural pluralism framework, in which he ends in his political and ethical philosophy to a crucial point that is Non-recognition could be considered as kind of cultural oppression, because the exclusion of identity and the exclusion of culture the original considered an urgent requirement because the groups that bear the soreness of  recognition are living in a state of constraint for the demand to recognition with the differentiation. Recognition with the distinctions means that the state need pay attention to the calls of individuals and different groups that demand recognition for their cultural and historical peculiarities. Plus, this recognition will not be only because of the recognition and the rejection of the dominance of the culture of the majority only, but an acknowledgment that primarily aims to listen and acceptance the peculiarities of the other, even if it is minority, due to the inevitable impacts on the life of the group and moral and existential of the individual’s life. This is because the recognition of the other cultural, ethnic, and religious distinctions is tolerance in itself, openness, acquaintance with the other, and contentment living with its differences. These benefits are recognition that Tayler may not support it alone, but liberal philosophers like Kimilka. Therefore, recognition is with cultural peculiarities and distinctions not recognized as the soil in which it develops freedoms of individuals and purposes of groups in it and minorities only, but also contribute significantly to motivate social inclusion and political participation.   If specific culture is original, it is spared the originality of the individual and it will grow inside it and the spirit of the group and its entity. Thus, neglecting it politically and legally is considered a dangerous punch that harms the benefits of recognition over the unity of society and its cohesion. Therefore, Recognition of the minorities, for example, would encourage the acceptance of differences and involvement in the wider cultural content. Hence, the historical majority culture identified. In which refusal of recognition means is a leap in the unknown because ethnic and cultural groups will reject at the worst appreciation for engaging and integrating into a society that does not value its privacy and does not respect its differentiation. Eventually, this affects the unity, security and safety of society negatively.                                              Therefore, According to Taylor there is no risk, if the majority group recognize the particularities of resident or hosted minorities recently, because the western social or social imagination content is flexible in its structure, host in its values, tolerant in its habits, and this means that western societies refuse historical inertia and imperative considering what they enjoy traditionally in terms of freedom, tolerance and openness. And accepting other cultures considered as a proof of the ability of the original content to adopt other cultures and customs that do not impact it negatively or threaten its existence, but rather this could be a positive progressive factor towards the inclusion of the historical groups, its acculturation and reciprocity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQalaai Zanist Scientific JournalSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207