Définir la religion en droit de l’asile : entre évitement et restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent texte analyse la conception de la religion qui émerge du contentieux, au Canada, relatif aux demandes d’asile pour motif de persécution religieuse. L’État canadien est astreint à une double obligation de neutralité et de garantie de la liberté de conscience et de religion, ce qui l’amène à s’immiscer dans le champ religieux afin de déterminer les contours de la religion. La spécificité du contentieux en droit de l’asile montre que la jurisprudence tente de faire émerger une qualification fonctionnelle de la religion, qui reste néanmoins imprégnée de résidus socioculturels. Après avoir présenté les stratégies des commissaires et des juges afin d’éviter de définir la religion, le présent article examine comment les caractéristiques du contentieux en droit de l’asile, notamment l’analyse d’éléments factuels comme l’évaluation de la crédibilité du témoignage, l’évaluation du risque de persécution et l’objectivation de la crainte, influent sur la définition de la religion qui en émerge néanmoins.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".