Gouverner le religieux avec les juges. Introduction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si l’analyse comparée des rapports entre État et religion connaît un regain d’intérêt, l’étude des processus politiques sous-jacents à la régulation publique du religieux reste balbutiante. La multiplication des controverses judiciaires impliquant la religion invite à s’intéresser à la place que tient la justice dans la gouvernance du religieux. Au croisement des champs d’études de l’action publique et de la judiciarisation du politique, ce dossier met en regard certaines des stratégies de recherche mises en œuvre à partir de cas et contextes variés (France, Canada, Suisse, Turquie, Israël, Malaisie). Il pointe le caractère polymorphe d’une judiciarisation imbriquant – via les usages que font les acteurs sociaux et politiques des ressources juridiques – les traditions nationales et le régime international des droits de l’Homme. Il en montre les effets ambivalents.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it