L’arbitrage religieux et les conditions normatives de la « reconnaissance »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Émettant l’hypothèse qu’une demande de reconnaissance était implicitement formulée par le projet d’Institut islamique de justice civile mis de l’avant en 2003 par l’imam torontois Syed Mumtaz Ali, nous démontrons dans cet article les principales conditions normatives que l’arbitrage religieux en droit familial ne put remplir, malgré les recommandations proposées par le Rapport Boyd (2004). Au nombre des limites rencontrées par cette demande, nommons notamment les risques de communautarisme, l’atteinte probable à l’égalité des sexes, ainsi qu’une préservation problématique de l’autonomie individuelle. Ce cas donne à voir une véritable cartographie de la reconnaissance et met en relief les frontières essentielles au-delà desquelles elle résiste à se réaliser à l’intérieur du modèle libéral de multiculturalisme.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".