Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Superdiversity has been critiqued by some as being too wedded to elements of modernity and universality, and too little to decoloniality. This chapter acknowledges this critique and explores the options and key elements with regard to a particular group of settler societies—Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada, and Australia. All three have seen a diversification of domestic diversity as a result of managed migration policy frameworks, but this diversification of diversity is complicated by ongoing processes of colonization and the marginalization of indigenous communities and nations. If superdiversity is to have utility and to continue to address the criticisms arising from those concerned with decoloniality, then conceptualizations of it need to address the role and influence of indigeneity, including the coproduction of conceptual frameworks and policy options with indigenous scholars and communities; the nature and influence of “White” hegemonic groups; and the particular nature of highly structured and managed systems of immigrant recruitment in order to recognize and address the intersection of this diversity with structural inequalities and to retain a critical approach to diversity management policies. This chapter explores the elements that are central to a decolonial superdiversity in the context of certain settler societies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".