How shall we all live together?: Meta‐analytical review of the mutual intercultural relations in plural societies project
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Living together in culturally plural societies poses numerous challenges for members of ethnocultural groups and for the larger society. An important goal of these societies is to achieve positive intercultural relations among all their peoples. Successful management of these relations depends on many factors including a research‐based understanding of the historical, political, economic, religious and psychological features of the groups that are in contact. The core question is ‘how we shall we all live together?’ In the project reported in this paper (Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies; MIRIPS), we seek to provide such research by reviewing three core psychological hypotheses of intercultural relations (multiculturalism, contact and integration) in 21 culturally plural societies. The main goal of the project is to evaluate these hypotheses across societies within the MIRIPS project in order to identify if there are some basic psychological principles that underlie intercultural relations panculturally. If there are, the eventual goal is to employ the findings to propose some policies and programmes that may improve the quality of intercultural relationship globally. An internal meta‐analysis using the MIRIPS project data showed that the empirical findings from these societies generally support the validity of the three hypotheses. Implications for the development of policies and programmes to enhance the quality of intercultural relations are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it