MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029129760 · doi:10.3167/hrrh2008.340305

The Headscarf: The French State as Mediator Between Civil Society and Individuals

2008· article· en· W2029129760 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elisa Wiygul

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Reflections/Réflexions Historiques · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)AutonomyIntervention (counseling)Civil societyReligious organizationSeparation of church and statePolitical scienceMeaning (existential)Order (exchange)LawSociologyPublic administrationPoliticsPsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the meaning of the French headscarf ban in the light of France's state-sponsored religious councils. These councils belie the view that France simply has a stricter separation of Church and State than the United States. Rather, France reconfigures the traditional conception of civil society as mediating between the individual and the state. The French state conceives of itself as the representative of the people and, as such, inter-mediates between religious institutions and individuals. This intervention achieves two distinct but complementary goals. First, the state endeavors to save individuals from private religious forces in order to promote individual autonomy. Second, the state's intervention into institutional religious matters bureaucratizes, centralizes, and domesticates religious institutions, making them more comprehensible and less threatening. Both the headscarf ban and the religious councils stem from the state's goal of serving as a buffer between its individual citizens and religious institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.020
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical Reflections/Réflexions HistoriquesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207