Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Canada et le Québec, à l’instar des Pays-Bas, de la France et de l’Angleterre, réfléchissent sur leurs politiques publiques, face aux défis que pose la diversité ethno-religieuse. À ce titre, la notion juridique d’« accommodement raisonnable », fondamentale pour les débats canadiens, est ici explicitée, car elle constitue une clé de compréhension de cet enjeu. On compare ensuite les situations québécoises et canadiennes, à la lumière de la distinction classique entre la sécularisation et la laïcité. Dans la réaction à la diversité religieuse, on peut tenir compte de certaines caractéristiques du Québec francophone, qui se rapportent à son origine franco-catholique. L’usage qu’on y fait du concept de « laïcité ouverte » mérite à cet égard un examen sérieux : il s’y dégage une conception de l’égalité à la fois réfractaire aux « privilèges » acquis des groupes religieux majoritaires et favorable à la protection des expressions religieuses individuelles brimées par les normes générales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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".