Bibliographic record
Abstract
The book instructs readers on how to communicate interculturally and supports them in reflecting on how they can renegotiate and reconstruct knowledge, ideologies, and relationships around the notion of interculturality. Anchored in the author's original and thought-provoking perspectives on interculturality, this interdisciplinary and globally insightful book explores how communicating around such notions cannot exclude ideologism, language, and translation issues or problematizing voice and silence in research and education. Written in an original and stimulating way, relying on a variety of genres and writing styles to mimic the dynamism and flexibility of the ideas under review, the authors urge us to (un)voice, scrutinize, nurture and galvanize our ways of dealing with interculturality ourselves and together with others in academia. The book's very specific focus on communicating around interculturality (rather than 'doing' interculturality) is a new and important step towards observing, analyzing, talking about, and contributing to today's complex and fragmented world.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".