Beyond Cultural Instrumentality: Exploring the Concept of Total Diaspora Cultural Capital for Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we critique and extend Bourdieu’s notion of cultural capital to develop the new concept of total diaspora cultural capital. We build on the limitations of cultural capital, which in the Bourdieu theory centre on materiality and class perpetuation. The article builds on an extensive review of the literature, using the PRISMA framework. We also use the findings of previous research to illustrate this argument. We differentiate between four types of organisations or groups that articulate various levels of cultural capital to build a body of evidence that establishes total diaspora cultural capital (type D groups) as a bounded collective identity creation encapsulating three main dimensions: appropriation, customisation and deployment. Total diaspora cultural capital is perceived as fitting the post-colonial global context through the acknowledgement that diasporas and hosts make the modern world, being agents who create and disseminate culture and economic sustainability through reciprocal appropriation of cultural assets. The research is the first to conceptualise the notion of total diaspora cultural capital. This research significantly extends Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital, which fails to capture the multiple contours of evolving sustainability perspectives. Total diaspora cultural capital creates bounded cultural capital that strengthens the agility of diaspora businesses.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".