Mouvement laïque québécois v Saguenay: Neutrality and Narrative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For every constitution there is an epic, for each decalogue a scripture. The controversy over the recitation of prayer at the sessions of the municipal council of the city of Saguenay laid bare the tensions between religious neutrality and historical identity that continue to play out in the constitutional politics of Quebec. At stake is control of the narrative of what Quebec was and is becoming, and thus control of the meaning of those symbols and norms that shape and direct its normative order. Mouvement laïque québécois v. Saguenay (City) is as much a case about constitutional doctrine as it is about the narrative of secularization in Canadian and (especially) Quebec society, and the ongoing displacement of a tacit Christian identity for a multicultural and civic ethos. In many ways, MLQ v. Saguenay is a distinctly Québécois controversy: It is the culmination of a long and often tumultuous struggle to define the place of Roman Catholicism in the civil and political life of the province after centuries of ecclesiastical hegemony and decades of reaction against this hegemony. The players in the drama were not new to the stage, but had been intervening in public life for years, most recently in the Consultation Commission on Accommodation Practices Related to Cultural Differences — the Bouchard-Taylor commission. The complaint that led to the actual case was originally brought before a forum charged with promoting the 1976 Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms rather than the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And it was, of course, Quebec justices who most directly weighed in on the debate, all the way to Gascon J. who wrote for the majority in the Supreme Court.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".