Gli accomodamenti ragionevoli in materia di libertà religiosa tra giurisprudenza della Corte europea e della Corte canadese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After analysing the features of tbe duty lo reasonable accommodation, applied by the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to religion practises, tbe article aims to underline that the reasonable accommodation supposes an inclusive notion of State neutrality. This notion, while imposing to State authorities an attitude of impartiality towards religious convictions, does not imply the complete exclusion of religion from the public sphere. The second part of the article focuses on the jurisprudence elaborated by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the manifestation of religious identity in the workplace. While recognising the principie of non discrimination, the Court seems really hesitant to identify a duty to accommodate in relation to religion practises. According to the thesis argued in the article, this trend is strictly linked with the principies elaborated by the Court on the Sta te neutrality and on the religious pluralism of the public sphere. With speaal regard to the wearing of religious symbols the Court has been admitting some significant restrictions to the manifestation of religious identity in the public area
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".