Bibliographic record
Abstract
N’ayant jamais fait l’objet d’une définition officielle, même dans les rares États ayant pourtant officiellement proclamé le principe aux fondements de leur organisation constitutionnelle, la laïcité n’a pas de contenu propre. Les significations qu’on lui attribue évoluent au gré des contextes historiques et des enjeux politiques. Ce faisant, la liberté conceptuelle qui en découle favorise la diffusion de représentations multiples – toutes légitimes – de ce qu’est la laïcité, ce qui contribuent à nourrir le débat scientifique. La polysémie inhérente au terme « laïcité » rappelle ainsi au chercheur le caractère dynamique de la réalité sociale qu’il a pour but d’analyser. S’inscrivant dans cette perspective, ce texte insiste sur l’importance des recherches sociographiques sur la laïcité, l’étude de ses trajectoires historiques, de ses fondements philosophiques, de ses ancrages juridiques et des débats sociaux qu’elle suscite s’avérant désormais indispensable à l’analyse compréhensive de l’objet « laïcité ».
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".