Minorités ethniques et nationales : les débats sur le pluralisme culturel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente la teneur et le contexte des débats politiques et académiques concernant le statut d’égalité des minorités ethniques et nationales durant les vingt dernières années. Il examine les arguments des trois principaux courants de pensée articulant ces débats : les courants libéral, républicain et communautaire, et il résume les fondements de leurs positions sur les enjeux distincts de l’égalité socio-économique et politique, de la reconnaissance symbolique et de la différence culturelle des minorités. Prenant appui sur la situation canadienne, une situation symptomatique des affrontements auxquels a donné et donne encore lieu la question des « droits » des minorités ethniques et nationales, cet article expose également les contre-critiques et les éventuelles failles des politiques du pluralisme culturel pour finalement s’interroger sur l’avenir de ces politiques dans le contexte de la transformation des États-providence durant les années 1990.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".