Gestions du nouveau pluralisme religieux dans les villes canadiennes. Établissement de mosquées et mécanismes de personnalisation des canaux de médiation à Montréal et à Laval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.Comment expliquer les différences entre les processus d'institutionnalisation des lieux de culte dans plusieurs villes? Notre article analyse l'établissement de lieux de culte musulmans à Montréal et à Laval. En suivant une approche néo-institutionnelle, nous montrons que des configurations institutionnelles – caractérisées par les relations intergouvernementales, les discours encadrant l'accommodement des demandes ethnoculturelles, les relations avec les élus et les fonctionnaires ainsi que les différentes formes de relations avec les groupes ethnoreligieux au niveau municipal – façonnent les processus d'institutionnalisation des lieux de culte et ce, par l'intermédiaire d'un mécanisme, soit la personnalisation, réussie ou non, des canaux de médiation. La personnalisation des canaux de médiation entre les autorités religieuses et municipales correspond à un processus d'institutionnalisation de type politique alors que l'échec de cette personnalisation correspond à un processus d'institutionnalisation de type administratif. Abstract.How does one account for the different processes of institutionalization of places of worship in different cities? To answer this question, the article analyses the establishment of Muslim places of worship in Montréal and Laval. Using a neo-institutional approach, I demonstrate how institutional configurations – characterised by the following: the state of inter-governmental relations; the discourses surrounding the accommodation of ethno-cultural and ethno-religious demands; the relations among local actors, especially elected officials and municipal public servants; and forms of mediation between municipalities and ethno-religious groups – impact on the processes of institutionalization, and this, through a mechanism, the degree of personalisation of mediation channels. My principal hypothesis is that personalisation of mediation channels leads to a political process of institutionalization whereas non-personalisation of these channels leads to an administrative one.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".