Towards inclusion through polyculturalism: A critical review of cultural hybridity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High levels of global migration have increased the complexity of the relationship between individuals and cultures. Multiculturalism has emerged as a prominent ideology to support inclusion by calling for the recognition and celebration of cultural differences and inviting cultural groups to maintain their distinctive cultural identities. Assuming cultural influences to be constant, general, categorical, and steady, the multicultural ideology may inadvertently exclude individuals positioned in-between cultures, not quite identifying with either culture but settling in hybridity. Polyculturalism has recently emerged as an alternative ideology arguing that cultural influences are dynamic, situated, partial, and plural. This paper critically reviews existing interdisciplinary literature to better understand individual outcomes of early immersive cultural mixing as a revelatory case of cultural hybridity and discuss the impact of the multiculturalism ideology on cultural inclusion and belonging of this population. We propose a polycultural mindset—cultural self-awareness embracing hybridity, plurality, and partiality; openness to other cultures and cultural compositions; and openness to the dynamic change of cultures and cultural associations in self and others—as an alternative to fostering an enhanced sense of belonging. We contribute a more nuanced understanding of the influence of multiple cultures on individuals and discuss the implications of adopting a polycultural ideology and mindset on social inclusion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".