MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1618917261

El tratamiento jurídico y político de la diversidad religiosa en Québec y Canadá

2013· article· es· W1618917261 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMigraciones. Publicación del Instituto Universitario de Estudios sobre Migraciones · 2013
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPluralDiversity (politics)PoliticsPolitical scienceCommissionInterculturalismWelfare economicsHumanitiesGeographyPublic administrationEthnologySociologyLawMulticulturalismEconomicsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada is a plural society that has also developed legal and political instruments to manage its diversity, including religious diversity. If Canada offi cially adopted Multiculturalismas the prevailing policy in this fi eld, Quebec has chosen to adopt the so-called Interculturalism, which, however, has not been officially defi ned. The main legal instrument to manage religious diversityis reasonable accommodation, whose evaluation justified the establishment of the Bouchard-Taylor Commission. A global analysis shows that Quebec has not yet developed a fully finished model of diversity management or a clearly alternative to the one operating in the rest of Canada, apart from the primacy given toits own linguistic option.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it