Un modèle rawlsien de gestion de la diversité : le cas du port du foulard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire propose d’étudier la problématique de la gestion de la diversité religieuse au Québec à partir de la question du port du foulard islamique. Le premier objectif du mémoire est de caractériser le contexte socio-historique québécois, en voyant comment cette société se trouve en tension entre le modèle multiculturaliste canadien d’une part, et l’influence de la laïcité stricte à la française. En second lieu, cet ouvrage s’appuie sur les écrits tardifs de John Rawls pour développer un modèle libéral républicain de gestion du pluralisme. Le dernier chapitre vise quant à lui à appliquer ce modèle d’inspiration rawlsienne à la problématique du port du foulard, et ce, afin de montrer en quoi il peut constituer une formule mitoyenne pour le Québec en fournissant une solution autant aux écueils de l’approche libérale individualiste qu’à ceux de l’approche du républicanisme jacobin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".