Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multiculturalism has been subject to backlashes across democratic states. These voices argue that after years of accommodation, minorities have failed to integrate and ought to be encouraged more forcefully to abandon norms and values that are in tension with those of their broader society. In this context, Debating Multiculturalism brings together two prominent scholars of the political theory of multiculturalism. Both agree with the need for minority accommodation in liberal democracies, but disagree on the pathway forward. Patti Tamara Lenard argues that multiculturalism must be robustly defended. Lenard argues that the accommodation of cultural and religious practices is key to achieving substantive political inclusion in democratic states. Rather than generating segregation and separation, the accommodation of such practices ensures that minorities can participate across multiple domains of politics as equal citizens. She examines claims for cultural preservation, too, and argues that an emphasis on political inclusion can explain why preservationist claims should be respected. In contrast, Peter Balint argues against the need for minority rights in multicultural contexts. Balint defends a radical form of neutrality, “active indifference,” which can achieve the accommodation of minority ways of life, without recourse to minority rights. He argues that if the problem arises because of a favoring of majority ways of life, then rather than add minority rights as a solution, majority privilege should simply be removed. This solution is not only fairer, but avoids many of the problems that have plagued minority rights. The book concludes with both authors critiquing each other’s positions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".