Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines what role, if any, religion should have in Canada’s public schools. The basic argument is that discussion about religion, as well as the manifestation of religious belief, should be encouraged in our schools because there are good philosophical, pragmatic and educational reasons to justify this kind of activity. At the same time, the author readily acknowledges that any discussion about, or expression of, religion must respect the values and principles embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982). As the Supreme Court of Canada reminds us, all freedoms are subject to reasonable limits and both the rights and limits have their origins in these fundamental values and principles, which make up the Canadian polity. RELIGION, EDUCATION PUBLIQUE ET LA CHARTE : OU ALLONS NOUS MAINTENANT? RESUME. Cet article examine quel role, s’il y en a un, la religion devrait avoir dans les ecoles publiques canadiennes. L’argument central est que les discussions a propos de la religion, de meme que la manifestation de croyances religieuses, devraient etre encouragee dans nos ecoles parce qu’il existe de bonnes raisons philosophique, pragmatique, et educative pour justifier ce genre d’activites. En meme temps, l’auteur reconnait aisement que toute discussion au sujet de la religion ou l’expression de celle-ci doit suivre les principes incarnes dans la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes (1982). Comme la Cour supreme du Canada nous le rappelle, toutes les libertes sont sujettes a des limites raisonnables et les deux, droits et limites, ont leurs origines dans ces valeurs et ces principes fondamentaux qui font la politique canadienne.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".