Cultural Relativism and Ethnocentrism as Two Alternative Principles of Сross-cultural Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization and integration processes in the modern world are developing very dynamically, which leads to the actualization of cross-cultural communication. Cultural relativism and ethnocentrism are the two fundamental principles that ensure the effective interaction of cultures. These two principles fully encompass both the material-rationalistic and the moral-spiritual components that shape the dialogue of cultures. Scientific exploration aims to develop theoretical-methodological and practically oriented guidelines, which will determine the positioning of the principles of cross-cultural communication and allow more effective use of their potential. The key tasks of the modern humanitarian-scientific discourse in the cultural dimension are the reorientation of all existing ideas, principles, and concepts of the synergetic model of development. The methodological arsenal capable of achieving the results of positioning ethnocentrism and cultural relativism in the processes of cross-cultural dialogue is divided into general scientific (analysis, classification, structurization), culturological (communicative linguistics methodology, semiotic), and philosophical (dialect). Prospective directions of research on cultural relativism and ethnocentrism are the search for balances in the use of these principles in the dialogue of cultures. So, in the course of the research, we distinguish the following models of the interrelation of principles of cross-cultural communication: conceptual-synergetic (relativism and ethnocentrism), procedural-dichotomous (relativism vs ethnocentrism), cultural-historical (from ethnocentrism to relativism). The modern interpretation of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism as principles of organization of cross-cultural communication should meet the requirements of the time, namely: dynamism, universality, pragmatism, identity, and efficiency.
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 | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".