La controverse sur les tribunaux d'arbitrage religieux ontariens: un non-dit identitaire?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Le présent article s'intéresse à la controverse survenue en 2002–2005 à l'occasion de la mise en place des tribunaux d'arbitrage religieux en Ontario. Il contribue aux travaux existants sur la question en mobilisant de nouvelles sources empiriques. Une attention particulière est accordée au discours des acteurs sociaux opposés à la mise en place de tribunaux d'arbitrage. Nous verrons que la plupart des opposants à l'arbitrage ne conçoivent pas le débat en termes d'opposition entre la religion et les principes féministes, mais centrent l'essentiel de leur argumentation sur le danger que constituerait, selon eux, un islam perçu comme oppressif et étranger. La controverse sur l'arbitrage religieux devient l'occasion de revendiquer une « identité canadienne » occidentale, à la fois laïque et judéo-chrétienne. De ce point de vue, on peut rapprocher l'épisode ontarien des controverses européennes relatives à l'islam qui ont émergé au cours de la dernière décennie, comme l'affaire des caricatures de Mahomet au Danemark, la polémique sur les minarets en Suisse, ou l'interdiction du voile intégral en Belgique.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".