Écriture juridique et régulation du religieux minoritaire en France et au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour contribuer à expliquer les décisions juridiques accommodant ou prohibant le port de signes religieux minoritaires tels que le voile islamique, cet article propose de s’intéresser au rôle joué par les traditions d’écriture juridique dans deux contextes nationaux contrastés : la France et le Canada. Il analyse la technique juridique en ce qu’elle permet de légitimer en droit des présupposés axiologiques plus ou moins favorables aux pratiques religieuses minoritaires. En comparant les styles d’écriture du juge canadien et du juge français, on met ainsi en lumière comment le premier, grâce à des techniques juridiques spécifiques, inclut le point de vue minoritaire dans ses décisions, alors que le second tend à favoriser le point de vue majoritaire et à délégitimer les demandes faites au nom de la moralité religieuse minoritaire, en particulier musulmane.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".