Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au sein des démocraties libérales contemporaines, la reconnaissance du pluralisme religieux s’est imposée à l’ordre du jour des grands débats de société. Enjeu politique dorénavant incontournable, elle oblige les États à s’interroger sur la place qu’ils acceptent d’accorder aux expressions religieuses sur la scène publique. C’est ce qui s’est passé au Québec durant la « crise » des accommodements raisonnables. Cet article présente brièvement le modèle québécois de reconnaissance de la diversité religieuse afin d’interroger la philosophie politique libérale sur ce qui pose problème : les limites de la tolérance religieuse ainsi que la distinction entre liberté individuelle et droits collectifs en matière religieuse. Plus profondément, le pluralisme des conceptions morales et religieuses, constitutif des sociétés modernes, met en question les fondements mêmes du vivre-ensemble.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".