Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural Security among Ethnic Minorities: Tibet and Québec The term “cultural security” covers a range of social, cultural and political meanings. My interest here is how minorities (ethnic, religious, cultural, linguistic, etc.) within a nation state ensure that their cultures are sustained to a satisfactory degree. Ruling elites aspire universally to social stability and minority populations that are equal stakeholders in, and loyal citizens of, the nation state. This is especially true in China where the ruling elites fear disorder and the breakup of the country to an inordinate degree, giving the issue of minority loyalty particular prominence. Tibet was incorporated into the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1950 and for the past 67 years the central government has struggled with how to best achieve these goals of stability and inclusion. Since the 1990s the central government’s policy has been to win the loyalty of Tibetans primarily through economic means. To that end tens of billions of Yuan have been poured into the region, physically transforming it while a prosperous nascent Tibetan middle class has emerged. Yet, Tibetan loyalty, and stability, is still very much in doubt. Indeed, tension between Tibetans and ethnic Chinese (Han), if anything, is increasing due to official intervention in cultural matters, particularly in language instruction and the Tibetan Buddhist religion. This paper examines the situation in Tibet emphasizing the lack of cultural security. As a contrast I also look at the province of Quebec in Canada where reassurances and concrete policies guaranteeing local culture have successively led to stability and loyalty to the state.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".