Une pilule dure à avaler : La Cour suprême des Etats-Unis consacre l’entreprise de tendance à but lucratif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au nom de la protection de la liberté religieuse des employeurs, la Cour suprême censure l’obligation faite par la loi américaine sur l’assurance-maladie de souscrire, au profit de leurs salariés, des contrats collectifs d’assurance santé prenant en charge un ensemble de contraceptifs, dont certains appartenaient à la catégorie des « pilules du lendemain ». Pour ce faire, la Cour suprême ne se fonde pas sur les principes constitutionnels du Ier amendement, mais sur une loi fédérale à l’histoire singulière, le « Religious Freedom Restoration Act », adopté en 1993. En déclarant cette loi applicable à des entreprises privées classiques, la Cour consacre la notion d’« entreprise de tendance » à but lucratif, même si elle en limite l’application à des entreprises étroitement contrôlées par des personnes physiques. La solution n’en marque pas moins une extension préoccupante de la notion d’ « entreprise de tendance » ou de conviction.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".