Re-Examining the Use of Inclusive Society as a Solution to Social Inequalities: It’s Time we Address the Elephants in the House
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social inclusion is one of the many social constructs of contemporary governments’ social integration policy. This paper critically analysed the policy goals of an inclusive society by examining the socioeconomic and politico-cultural milieus in which governments implement this policy. With references to the United States’ Affirmative Action and Canada’s Multiculturalism, one can infer that disadvantaged individuals, groups, or communities are neither included nor empowered through the processes of social inclusion. Consequently, this paper concluded that the process of social inclusion cannot lead to effective social integration, given the stagnant socio-economic and politico-cultural environments in which government implements this policy. Instead, most social inclusion programs have become the tools for forced social cohesion with minimal policy objectives to integrate disadvantaged individuals into mainstream society. In summary, social inclusion is a politically correct opiate that is being used to sedate socially excluded individuals or underprivileged communities until they disappear into obscurity. Received: 4 January 2023 / Accepted: 26 February 2023 / Published: 6 March 2023
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 | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| 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".