Bibliographic record
Abstract
In February 2007, Quebec’s Premier made an announcement about a question which he said went ‘to the heart of Quebec’s future as a nation’ and about which a special commission had been created to study the ‘reasonable accommodation’ issue which had gripped the Canadian province for months. (The formal name of the Commission was the ‘Commission for Consultation on Accommodation in the Practices Regarding Cultural Differences.) That issue had emerged when, in January 2007, a municipal council in the Mauricie town of He´ rouxville had adopted a code of conduct for immigrants. The task of the Commission would be to report on the direction and escalation of the public debate about how to respond to religious minorities whose practices were clashing with fundamental rights and values. In the view of the Premier (and that of many local Quebecers) the essence of reasonable accommodation has been misrepresented in at least one specific instance: hassidic Jews had called for the installation of frosted windows in a YMCA in Montreal’s Mile End district, so that hassidic boys in a neighbouring synagogue would not be able to see women in exercise clothes. The objection to such a request was that it ran counter to a secular-based society which did not consider the religious demands of distinctive minorities to be privileged.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".