Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Until very recently, the “orthodox” liberal view had assumed that the right to the profession and practice of one's own religious values encompassed the right to instil particular religious values in one's children. This view has been challenged by sustained analysis of the role of children within liberal theory, given the basic tenet of the equal moral worth of persons. This strand of liberal thought questions the extent to which parental rights to direct children's upbringing can include a right to form children's basic value sets. With this challenge comes a stronger basis from which to also challenge the idea that parents may legitimately oppose certain aspects of the state-mandated curriculum on the basis that such education may impinge on the values they wish to instil in their children. This paper will examine the controversy surrounding Québec's “Ethics and Religious Culture” course within a framework that seeks to put the interest of children first, as well as how the religious rights of parents and children might be understood in this context. Résumé.Naguère, l'opinion libérale voulait que le droit à la pratique et à la profession de sa propre religion et de ses valeurs comprît le droit d'inculquer ces valeurs religieuses à ses enfants. Depuis un certain temps, cette position est remise en question à la lumière d'une analyse soutenue des droits de l'enfant, vu la primauté du tenant de l'égalité morale de tous les individus dans la pensée libérale contemporaine. Selon cette analyse, il n'est pas acquis que le droit du parent de voir à la formation de l'enfant comprenne le droit de lui imposer des valeurs de base particulières. Cette remise en question donne lieu à une réévaluation plus concrète du droit des parents de s'opposer à certains aspects du programme d'études établi par le gouvernement sous prétexte que ceux-ci nuiraient à leur droit d'inculquer des valeurs particulières à leurs enfants. La controverse au sujet du cours d'éthique et de culture religieuse au Québec est revue dans un contexte qui place en priorité le droit de l'enfant. Il est question du rapport entre les droits des parents et ceux des enfants concernant la religion et l'éducation religieuse.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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 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".