Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an analysis and a general taxonomy of intergroup ideologies, and presents a list of their indicators. This taxonomy is related to the eight ideologies that were originally outlined in the early works. These ideologies were created on the basis of three dimensions of intercultural relations: cultural maintenance; social participation; and relative power. The taxonomy of intergroup ideologies proposed here follows these three dimensions, which are related to two issues: (i) attitudes towards cultural diversity; and (ii) forms of inclusion of ethnocultural groups in the larger society (including the issue about the hierarchy among groups). It is possible to assess how these issues are solved using four indicators: (1) celebrating differences, (2) status of groups, (3) opportunity for social interaction, and (4) way to ensure the unity of society. Orientations to these indicators make it possible to understand what kind of intergroup ideologies covering intercultural attitudes and intergroup relations exist in countries and describe them.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".