MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963711152 · doi:10.1177/1746197919859487

Learning to live together: Religious education and religious symbols in Flanders and Québec

2019· article· en· W2963711152 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Citizenship and Social Justice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsFlemishSecularizationReligious educationReligious diversityDiversity (politics)SociologySimilarity (geometry)Political scienceGeographyPedagogyEthnologyLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Like most Western nations and regions, Flanders and Québec are characterized by increasing religious diversity and secularization. Accordingly, ‘learning to live together’ is a main objective in their public education programmes. In spite of this similarity, both regions seem to interpret the concept of ‘living together’ in a different way and especially when it comes to wearing religious symbols and organizing religious education in governmental schools, there is a huge difference between the Flemish and Québec policy. In this article, we will have a closer look at both policies and try to find out which one is to be preferred in their present educational contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it