Domestic Migration and Integration of Religious Diaspora: Global experiences can benefit the shaping of internal relationships in Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many Balinese Hindus have migrated to East Kalimantan for official assignments, as part of transmigration programs, and for advancing economic opportunities, thus initiating a domestic Balinese diaspora. This diaspora maintains its identities and practices, as in Bali, and seeks to replicate Balinese symbols and practices when connecting with other Hindu communities from different cultures and traditions. This article sheds light on “Bali-centrism” and “quasi-exclusiveness” when the Balinese diaspora interacts with non-Balinese Hindus within East Kalimantan. The authors argue that Bali-centrism and Balinization might alienate and socially exclude non-Balinese Hindus from mainstream Hindu development. To cope with the grief of losing Hindu ‘friends’ from another tradition, a mindset shift is required. Furthermore, with the relocation of the Indonesian capital city from Jakarta to Nusantara, the influx of various ethnic and religious groups, including Hindu adherents, would be unavoidable, although admittedly it is impossible to know at this juncture about the eventual admixture of administration, commerce and culture that the city would comprise. The authors propose a “salad bowl” concept to build Hindu communities in a multicultural state with its new capital city. To augment understanding of the multiplicity of components and attributes influencing a diasporic community, the authors have drawn from applicable, non-religious diasporic experiences as well as from the historical manoeuvring of different religious groups globally; this knowledge may help researchers and community development practitioners understand the prevalence of bonding issues and interaction by sects within all religions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".