Le débat sur l’implantation de tribunaux islamiques tel que reflété par les journaux québécois La Presse et Le Devoir (2003-2005)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article aborde le rôle que peut jouer un chercheur en sciences des religions, possédant en outre une formation de juriste, dans l’espace public contemporain en ce qui a trait au débat qui a eu lieu au sujet de l’implantation de tribunaux islamiques au Canada. Il s’appuie sur des faits et des arguments présentés dans une série d’articles publiés dans les journaux québécois La Presse et Le Devoir entre 2003-2005. L’analyse du contenu de ces articles permet de mieux comprendre les enjeux de ce débat, et d’y mesurer en particulier l’influence du droit. Comme piste possible de solution, l’auteur insiste sur le caractère dynamique et évolutif du droit religieux musulman capable de s’adapter à des contextes très différents et de s’enrichir de ces expériences.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".