Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Québec, de mars 2006 à mars 2007, la question des accommodements raisonnables aura été au cœur de l’actualité. Par une relecture des débats sur les accommodements raisonnables, cet article permet de saisir ceux-ci comme ayant servi de prétextes à deux autres débats. L’un portant sur l’identitaire et les conceptions de la communauté politique que les diverses positions mobilisent, l’autre portant davantage sur le statut de la religion dans l’espace public. Ces deux débats sont évidemment reliés, voire qu’ils se chevauchent et s’entrecroisent au point qu’il devient hasardeux de les dissocier. Ces débats deviennent ainsi le foyer de la réflexion sur nos conceptions mêmes de l’espace public et sur des aspects cruciaux du vivre ensemble dans une société pluraliste et démocratique. De ces deux débats, l’article revisite les enjeux et met en perspective les raisons communes susceptibles d’inspirer l’action publique.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".