Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite research which shows that, over the last 40 years, most Western states have steadily enhanced their multicultural policies, on the ground, reality tells a different story. Today, Western governments are closing their borders and reversing long‐standing programmes that welcomed newcomers, whereas immigrants continue to be targets of hostile majority groups. This paper explores three lessons that can be learned from approaches to social integration defended by mid‐century American thinkers during the civil rights era and their relevance for debates about multicultural integration today. The first lesson is that legal rights are not effective at creating an integrated society. Second, integration is a transformative project that depends on empowering minorities through their active participation. Third, one of the chief obstacles to a successful, normatively attractive approach to integration is resistant majorities rather than reluctant minorities. Even though the project of multicultural integration is different from the project of racial integration, mid‐century ideas about the social integration of a racist society focused on concerns familiar and helpful within multicultural contexts. The aim here is to strengthen our understanding of integration by exploring features of these mid‐century ideas relevant to multicultural debates today.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".