Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a literature review of space, urbanity, and religion, this article identifies some descriptive categories and analytical frameworks to theorize problems faced by religious minorities, especially Muslims, in obtaining space for their cemeteries and places of worship. A second section focuses on debates and an analysis related to these themes in the province of Quebec (Canada), especially in the City of Montreal, showing that while spatial dimensions rarely constitute an analytical category, this aspect is nevertheless a continual source of tension. The article illustrates how dysfunctional administrative processes have dominated the public scene in recent years. A case study shows how a few actors are exploiting provincial regulations in order to oppose public decisions that seek to accommodate the needs of Muslims, using a process for approving amendments to zoning bylaws by way of referendum. After a brief examination of the case related to a Muslim cemetery in a village near Quebec City, to shed light on the recent debates surrounding regulations, the article analyzes the decision-making process resulting in a failure to modify zoning regulations in order to welcome new places of worship in a borough of Montreal. While analyzing administrative and legal aspects, the article also exposes the complexity of the social and spatial dynamics at stake. Our conclusion is that any successful public policy on diversity must employ multilayered strategies, particularly to support space regulations with foundational intercultural and interreligious initiatives. It also brings attention to the perverse effect of some local participatory procedures, whereby a few actors maneuver to mobilize citizens, in order to resist the religious pluralization of space.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".