Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractWhat normative principles should multicultural states be guided by in responding to minority claims for the accommodation of cultural and religious social practices? This article explores how theories of non-domination can contribute to debates on this question in the multiculturalism literature. It examines Philip Pettit's, Cecile Laborde's and Frank Lovett's republican theories and argues that non-domination-based approaches to multicultural accommodation are more suitable to assess the dynamic of intra- and inter-group relations than the prominent liberal–multiculturalist alternative. However, their advantages are not contingent on the wider theories from which they emerge, but rather related to generalizable features of the non-domination ideal. This suggests that non-domination should also be appealing to non-republicans, who can adopt it minimally as a critical principle to determine illegitimate policies.Keywords: non-dominationmulticulturalismminority accommodationrepublican theory AcknowledgementsI wish to thank Richard Vernon for his guidance and support as a postdoctoral supervisor; Margaret Moore, Trevor Tchir and Nick Hardy for helpful comments and conversations about the argument of this paper; as well as the referees for their thoughtful suggestions and constructive criticisms.Notes1. In addition to the works discussed here, prominent accounts of the ideal of non-domination are also developed by John Maynor in his account of modern republicanism (Maynor 2003); and Clarissa Hayward, who explores non-domination from a non-republican perspective (Hayward 2000), as an ideal of political freedom drawn from a particular theory of power.2. By 'accommodations' here I mean either changes to existing policies or elements within evolving policies that address their differential effects on cultural and religious minorities. As discussed in the normative multiculturalism literature, these can include exemptions from laws and regulations (such as the exemption for Sikhs from motorcycle helmet laws, or from the ban on carrying knives in schools; or exemptions for indigenous peoples from hunting laws; or exemptions from animal slaughter regulations for kosher or halal meats; or exemption from conscription for Quakers; or exemption from schooling laws for Amish children, etc.), recognition of traditional or religious law (for example, family law arbitration, or the recognition of religious polygamous marriages, or the inclusion of oral histories as evidence in indigenous land claims); or formal measures to enable participation on par with the majority (such as multilingual services, or special representation, or provisions to recognize various religious holidays); or various measures related to a group's ability to regulate membership (such as rules of exclusion, or schooling provisions such as those associated with language laws in Quebec).3. Although in this paper I have room to consider only Will Kymlicka's renowned approach to these issues, it is important to note that liberal engagement with the topic is extensive and diverse. For example, significantly different perspectives on accommodation questions are developed by Brian Barry (Barry Citation2001) and Chandran Kukathas (Kukathas Citation2003).
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it