Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le débat sur l’accommodement raisonnable est non seulement souhaitable mais nécessaire. Loin de soutenir collectivement le développement de l’identité québécoise souhaitée, certains dérapages dans ce dossier contribuent plutôt à diviser, et à renforcer les clivages entre Eux et Nous. Mais comment faire en sorte que le débat actuel sur la place de la diversité au sein de la société québécoise soit à la fois civil, civique et inclusif ? Pour y arriver, il faudrait d’abord cesser de réduire la question de l’accommodement raisonnable à la seule présence des « nouveaux arrivants » et de distinguer intégration, ajustement et accommodement raisonnable. Il faudrait ensuite valoriser l’expertise développée au sein de l’administration publique depuis quinze ans en matière de prise en compte de la diversité culturelle et religieuse pour mettre en avant un nous inclusif et s’opposer à la propagation d’une vision stéréotypée de certaines religions ou sous-groupes de la société québécoise.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.002 |
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".