比較とは何か？ : カナダの多文化主義と日本の共生の翻訳を通して
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we explore the possibilities and challenges of the method of "comparison" in understanding diversity issues.We begin by drawing an initial contrast between "Canadian" multiculturalism and "Japanese" kyosei as distinct ways of interpreting and managing human diversity to suggest that each is a form of comparison.Drawing upon critical discussions of cultural comparison in the discipline of anthropology and from our observations during the Osaka RESPECT Summer School program at the University of Toronto, we argue that any comparison, whether multiculturalism or kyosei, implies a common basis among humans upon which certain kinds of difference are recognized.Such bases are specific to the historical and cultural conditions in which they exist and are used.We then examine what happens when these forms of comparison are translated.Such translations can risk reducing one form of comparison into the terms of anotherfor example, we may interpret kyosei as an example of "Japanese culture" that exists within the framework of multiculturalism.However, such translations always include "gaps" between the things being compared.These gaps point to new kinds of differences and similarities among humans that are not fully encompassed by a given framework.Instead, they are found and bridged in specific concrete situations and interactions.We therefore argue that comparison is a dynamic, situated, and interactive process, through which actors continuously experiment with translating and comparing forms of difference.We then use this dynamic and processual notion of comparison to illustrate the new and unexpected relationships and interpretations produced between ostensibly "Canadian" and "Japanese" ways of interpreting diversity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".