MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399095606 · doi:10.24071/snf.v2i2.8518

Konsep Kebebasan Menurut Will Kymlicka

2024· article· en· W4399095606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of The National Conference on Indonesian Philosophy and Theology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Education and Local Wisdom
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInjusticeMulticulturalismSociologyEthnic groupTheme (computing)LawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article talks about Will Kymlicka's concept of freedom. It should be noted that the emergence of Kymlicka's idea of freedom is inseparable from his big theme of "Multiculturalism". Kymlicka defines multiculturalism so that everyone must be treated properly by looking at their rights, because everyone has freedom both individually and in groups that are reflected in culture. For this reason, the most basic thing emphasized by Kymlicka is freedom. What kind of freedom does she offer? Kymlicka divides freedom into liberalism and individual freedom. As well as freedom in the context of culture. Therefore, I see that in reality everyone, be it from ethnicity, race, and so on, has the same rights. Free to express their opinions without any pressure from any party or group. The emergence of this concept was caused by the injustice experienced by Canadian society at that time. The issue raised is how Kymlicka strives for equality in everyone individually, as well as in groups. This means that everyone must receive the same treatment without discriminating between one group and another. Freedom means that there is an attitude of acceptance within each individual. The author will discuss why Will Kymlicka sees freedom as one of the most concerned ideas, in impacting the cultures of each ethnic group, race and so on.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of The National Conference on Indonesian Philosophy and TheologySame topicMulticultural Education and Local WisdomFrench-language works237,207