A CASE STUDY: NEUTRALITY POSTURE OF THE MEDIATOR IN INTERCULTURAL MEDIATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mediation is becoming a more peaceful and internationally accepted solution for solving conflicts. It is a dynamic and interactive process where a neutral third party that is the mediator assists disputing parties in resolving conflict. Normally, there is an assumption that the mediator will remain neutral. This thesis explores the neutral posture of the mediator when dealing with inter-cultural mediation. The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate the understanding and implementation of neutrality of the intercultural mediator in practice. The research questions focused on the mediator’s perceptions, interpretations, conceptions, implementation and effectiveness of the neutrality posture at mediation. Ten face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted with intercultural mediators hailing from diverse geographical locations. Data were coded and analyzed through thematic analysis. The findings of the study revealed that intercultural mediators have different views of neutrality in mediation. Moreover, they adopt the meaning and posture of neutrality according to their self-determination in practice. An alternative discourse for this study should be to frame a standard meaning to the term of neutrality by giving its absolute significance in mediation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 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".