Autorité publique, pluralisation et sectorisation religieuse en modernité tardive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La pluralisation religieuse est généralement considérée comme un trait dominant de la modernité. La teneur actuelle des rapports entre États et groupements religieux, particulièrement la réaction publique au phénomène sectaire en Europe, fait toutefois ressortir son articulation avec une logique politique concomitante, celle de la sectorisation religieuse. Alors que la logique de pluralisation conduit à créer un espace public en religion, la logique de sectorisation induit le protectionnisme religieux et l’authentification religieuse. Suivant les mesures de pluralisation/sectorisation des religions effectivement prises par la gouverne, on proposera de distinguer divers types de politiques publiques pluralistes : libérale, élitiste, démocratique et technocratique. Règle générale, plus la sectorisation est poussée, plus l’autorité publique s’approprie de manière exclusive le phénomène religieux. Quelques décisions politiques, administratives et judiciaires récentes seront discutées en guise d’illustration.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".