Obligations of Faith: Understanding the Place of Religion in the Context of Canadian Multiculturalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation explores how religion is understood in the context of Canadian multiculturalism. While Canadians seem to have a fairly high level of comfort with ethnic, or linguistic diversity, religion presents a stumbling block in both political and social contexts. We are taught it is impolite to talk about religion, and many Canadians are uncomfortable with these discussions. This makes the place of religion in the public sphere unclear. Realities of diversity and pluralism inevitably lead to instances of miscommunication, uncertainty and conflict. Multiculturalism serves as strong a political tool and policy. However, it serious challenges reveal limitations of multiculturalism as both a philosophy and a policy, particularly as it pertains to religion. An appeal to Charles Taylor’s understanding of secularism, which asserts that no particular position of belief or unbelief is privileged and that all are equally contestable, serves as the definition from which our conceptual and legal tools can be most effective. Reasonable accommodation and the politics of recognition have become the primary methods of understanding and negotiating religious diversity in Canada. While both of these notions are ultimately flawed, this dissertation argues that they have utility insofar as they are tempered with a Levinasian commitment to the other, and an openness to narrative and dialogue. Cultural and religious diversity are simply realities in the increasingly globalised world and it is important that we have strong philosophical foundations that allow for pragmatic and effective methods of problem solving and conflict resolution.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".