L’angle mort de la « laïcité ouverte » : les processus de navigation et négociations dans le vécu religieux au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on our critiques of the reasonable accommodation of religious minorities in Canada (see Selby et al., 2018a ; Beaman, 2017 ; Barras, 2016), this paper argues for attention to processes as intrinsic to everyday interactions of religiosity (following Tully, 1995, 2000 ; Van Quaquebeke et al., 2007). We contend that frameworks like Maclure and Taylor’s (2010) on ‘open’ and ‘closed’ secularism are useful for nation state comparison, but ineffectively account for the power asymmetries lodged within everyday religiosity. Their model protects the status quo ; it does not call institutional values or procedures into question, erases the navigation that occurs before an ‘accommodation’ is requested, and entrenches conflict as reflective of the experiences of religious minorities. Based on interviews with 90 self-defined Muslims in two cities, we propose a model of navigation and negotiation to better capture how religious practices are contextual and embedded in power relations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".