Liberté de religion et éducation : les procès des mennonites canadiens au 20e siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the judicial articulation between religious liberty and education in Canadian Mennonite communities during the 20th century. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate how specific judicial data are linked to general social contexts and to show that some changes in global social contexts and some local elements have an influence on religious liberty in education for a specific religious community. During the 20th century, we can find three trials involving Mennonite education (R. v. Hildebrand ; R. v. Wiebe ; Bal v. Ontario). These judicial data concerning the Mennonites are understood and interpreted in the Canadian social and historical context of the 20th century. Using these rulings as primary literature, the following question is studied: which socio-legal issues linked to religious freedom and education are relevant to these trials? As a result, the study shows that the articulation between religious liberty and education varies for Mennonites according to four considerations: 1) Mennonite faith; 2) relations with other religious groups in which Mennonites had been engaged; 3) factors related to education in itself, interwoven into a plural society and conceived as a public aspect of the identity construction of individuals; and 4) some specific aspects related to the Canadian constitution. Therefore, it is shown that these four socio-judicial considerations, which were associated with the trials involving Mennonites in education, are all concerned, one way or another, with the articulation of religious liberty and education. Keywords: religious freedom, education, Mennonite, Canada, trial
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".