Du port du turban à l’arbitrage religieux : les limites du multiculturalisme canadien comme projet de société
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since it was adopted as government policy in 1971, Canadian multiculturalism has always tried to steer between the need to respect the different communities living in the country and the necessity of maintaining unity. Thus, it is both a policy of recognition which aims at promoting difference and a policy of integration at the heart of a societal project based on developing a pan-Canadian identity. However, in the post-9/11 context, the fragile balance between these two aspects of the aforementioned policy seems to be increasingly threatened. While some may question its principles on the account that they are a menace to an "ideal" homogeneity, others would like it to be further enforced even though it might increase differences between the groups. Therefore, multiculturalism is being faced with new challenges, among which the debate on the possibility of using Islamic law in the arbitration of family matters is only one example. Drawing from such examples, this article comments on the limits of multiculturalism as an instrument of social cohesion and shows how the flexibility of the policy makes it possible to deal with these challenges
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".