Internationale Konferenz „Dimensionen kultureller Sicherheit bei ethnischen und sprachlichen Minderheiten“, 17.–19. November 2016, Bautzen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
und Lateinamerika verschiedene Dimensionen der kulturellen Sicherheit bei ethnischen und sprachlichen Minderheiten darzustellen -etwa staatliche Stabilität, Nations-und Staatsbildungsprozesse, Minderheitenrecht und -institutionen, Siedlungsgebiet und Heimatverlust, Umgang mit kulturellem Erbe und Revitalisierung der Minderheitensprache. Das erste Panel widmete sich der Thematik "State stability and cultural security" und damit allgemeinen und in die Thematik einführenden Überlegungen.Andreas Gruschke (Chengdu, "Cultural security: Introductory notes") stellte die Genese der Begriffe sowie grundlegende Überlegungen zum Verständnis von kultureller Sicherheit und kultureller Integration an.Tom Grunfeld (New York/USA, "Cultural security among China's ethnic minorities: Tibet and the example of Quebec") ging regionenübergreifend auf Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Schutz kultureller Identität, sozialer Entwicklung und politischer Stabilität ein.Dabei führte er die Provinz Quebec in Kanada als positives Beispiel an, wo konkrete Maßnahmen, die die lokale Kultur garantieren, sukzessive zu Stabilität und Loyalität gegenüber dem Staat geführt haben.Pierre Trudel (Montreal, "Rebuilding of aboriginal nations, cultural security
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.013 |
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".