Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tension between religious freedom and non-discrimination principles is becoming increasingly acute. Questions about the appropriate way to balance the two rights arise with particular regularity. The status of women in multiculturalism policies has been the site for debate as gender issues test the limits of toleration through such practices as under-age marriage and veiling. In policy discourses, the “crisis of multiculturalism” is increasingly tied to gender equality concerns and the need to counter, in particular, the gender inequality in Islam. Debates about gender in the politics of cultural difference serve simultaneously to name certain communities as backward and majority culture as the norm. In the process, the real issues of gendered structural inequality are obscured. I examine these issues through the lens of the Bill 94 in Québec, which seeks to ban the niqab in public places. The ban would encompass nearly every public institution, including childcare centres and public health facilities. The government defended the law by invoking principles of gender equality and secularism. I argue for a multiculturalism policy that focuses on structural inequalities rather than on cultural difference. The shift from a politics of structural difference to an emphasis on cultural difference has obscured the larger issues of structural inequalities—poverty, unemployment, and racism—while simultaneously magnifying issues related to religion or culture. Multiculturalism still has an important role to play in achieving greater social equality. We need new ways of addressing dilemmas of justice and equality in multicultural societies as it is necessary to reformulate multiculturalism rather than to abandon it.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".