Après le 7 janvier 2015, quelle place pour le citoyen musulman en contexte libéral sécularisé ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour mieux analyser les implications et conséquences des événements de janvier 2015, il faut parler du regard public sur l’islam et les musulmans, ce qui renvoie à l’idée d’une scène publique sur laquelle controverses, discussions polémiques et délibérations collectives se déploient, où émergent et se constituent des problèmes publics. L’irruption de la violence politique accélère potentiellement l’institutionnalisation de politiques du soupçon et de la méfiance vis-à-vis des populations musulmanes de France en convoquant des répertoires juridico-administratifs inadaptés. Les réactions politiques françaises, en particulier le choix de répondre aux attentats par une injection de laïcité dans l’école publique, sont préoccupantes en ce qu’elles contribuent à instituer un espace public dont le « monolinguisme » nationalo-laïque menace de s’avérer délétère.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".