MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525716915 · doi:10.5750/jjsoc.v50i1.16

Hassidim and the ‘Reasonable Accommodation’ debate in Quebec

2011· article· en· W2525716915 on OpenAlexaffabout
William Shaffir

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Jewish Journal of Sociology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationCommissionReasonable accommodationLawImmigrationPolitical scienceSociologyRoyal CommissionPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Jewish Journal of SociologySame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207