Evaluation of Studies on Cultural Humility in Terms of Various Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With globalisation, the interaction between cultures has gained momentum, bringing to the forefront the desire to understand other cultures and appreciate diversity. The concept of cultural humility, which emerged in medicine and health sciences, is characterised by individuals critically filtering their beliefs about the culture of the person they interact with and taking a more open stance towards understanding different cultures. Over the years, cultural humility studies have also been adopted in the social and human sciences. In this context, in the present study, a bibliometric analysis of cultural humility publications in social sciences and educational research categories in the Web of Science and Scopus databases was carried out to summarise the trends in the developing literature. The data collected within the scope of the research were analysed using the R Studio tool. According to the research results, cultural humility studies have increased in recent years. It was determined that the most productive countries on this subject are the USA, Canada, and Australia, and the countries most open to co-operation with researchers in foreign countries are the USA and Australia. In addition, the journal with the highest number of publications on the subject is ‘Social Work Education’, and the most cited publication is the article titled ‘From Mastery to Accountability: Cultural Humility as an Alternative to Cultural Competence’ written by Marcie Fisher-Borne, Jessie Montana Cain, and Suzanne L. Martin. It is thought that the results obtained from the research will help researchers who want to examine the issue of cultural humility by providing a perspective.
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 | 0.077 | 0.228 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".