Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette contribution entend mettre en relation trois difficultés concernant la liberté d’expression religieuse en contexte européen. Les critiques éthiques exprimées par les religions à l’encontre de certaines formes de vie individuelle semblent progressivement limitées au sein de la société civile au nom de la neutralité de l’espace public. Mais au même moment, au nom cette fois de la liberté d’expression, différents pays européens hésitent à étendre aux religions la protection légale contre les discours d’incitation à la haine et à la discrimination. Ces deux champs devraient être soumis à des tests identiques, à savoir une commune opposition à la violence et à l’oppression sociale, mais aussi un accès égal à un débat social ouvert aux arguments en matières morales et religieuses. Enfin, se pose la question des relations entre le pluralisme de la societé civile et l’autonomie morale des groupes intermédiaires (comme les familles, les Églises et les associations).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".