MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189077565 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.1806

Limites de l’accommodement : le droit a-t-il tout dit ?

2007· article· fr· W2189077565 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Pierre Bosset

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quelles sont les limites de l’accommodement raisonnable ? Et le droit est-il disqualifié pour répondre à cette question ? Au Québec, plusieurs semblent être d’avis que seule une délibération de nature politique peut fixer des limites adéquates à ce concept, le droit et les tribunaux ayant (dit-on) montré leur incapacité à encadrer l’application de celui-ci sur la base de valeurs ou principes importants, comme la mission des institutions publiques ou le respect de l’égalité des sexes. Pourtant, dans la mesure où il exprime les valeurs fondamentales d’une société, le droit fait nécessairement partie de toute délibération publique. Cet article explore les voies par lesquelles le droit peut, en toute cohérence avec lui-même – et sans compromettre son autonomie par rapport au politique –, tenir compte de valeurs ou principes importants comme l’égalité des sexes dans l’application de l’accommodement raisonnable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.039
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207