Intercultural communication, city planning, and diversity in Winnipeg, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intercultural communication addresses some of the apparent challenges that surface from interactions among diverse people. The concept stretches beyond language and dialect barriers and includes the ways in which culture influences how people understand, create and respond to communication depending on where they are from, their life experiences, social structure, ethnicity, religion, education, occupation, and so on. This research acknowledges that culture is a broad and difficult to define concept because it influences individuals and groups in different ways, especially in an era of globalization. Through an exploration of literature, semi-structured interviews and a focus group, and applying the concept of intercultural communication to active planning practice, the research examines how a sample of Winnipeg planners learn and practice such intercultural communication. Their perspectives on this practice are then considered in the context of collaboration, where it is concluded that intercultural communication competencies can directly foster collaboration. The practice has potential benefits for the many diverse publics that now need to be better served through planning processes. Intercultural communication is an important practice of planners in culturally diverse cities such as Winnipeg because planners often find themselves in intermediary 'bridging' roles among diverse cultures. It is confirmed that intercultural communication requires a necessary set of competencies, values and skills that must influences one's planning practice.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".