The Case-Law Concept of Reasonable Accommodation: The European Court of Human Rights Facing the Governance of Cultural and Religious Diversity in the Public Space
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter deals with the legal concept of reasonable accommodation, presenting in a novel way a topic that is not covered in the Spanish doctrine. It analyzes the development of this notion in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada and the recent introduction in the European Court of Human Rights, in which some judges have made an explicit reference to this technique and call for their use. The duty to accommodate or adjust is the duty, under the law that managers of institutions and public and private organizations have in order to avoid any form of indirect discrimination for minorities and majorities, taking different harmonization adjustments in the application of certain laws or certain regulations, making norms more flexible or adapting them in its implementation. This allows a fairer management of cultural and religious diversity in public space, according to an intercultural model led by the Council of Europe.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it