THE HISTORY OF THE FORMATION OF THE CONCEPT OF MULTICULTURALISM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the emergence and formation of the concept of" multiculturalism", as well as its frequent use in scientific and public texts. In connection with the concept of" Multiculturalism", the definitions and views presented in the works of Russian and foreign scientists are presented. Various definitions of this concept analyze its uncertain political and cultural orientation. In this regard, the concept of "Multiculturalism" is interpreted in different media and in different audiences, which, in turn, requires a detailed study of this issue. In addition, it is characteristic that the concept of "multiculturalism" was formed in the classical immigration countries of the United States, Canada, and Australia, which is associated with the development of ethno-cultural movements, and as the main form of multiculturalism in European countries. The emergence of multiculturalism in Western Europe is associated with the historical era of colonial countries compared to countries of cultural immigration. The ideology of multiculturalism in the countries of Western Europe is supported by the spread of liberal values, which make us think about the ineffectiveness of modern Western European culture. The reason for this is that multiculturalism in Europe has a debt and coercive policy. This term appears and is discussed in many discussions when it comes to immigration and social difficulties, the lack of disagreement and cooperation in modern society, the crisis of the modern model of the state.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".