MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123232157 · doi:10.1177/1023263x1001700203

Reasonable Accommodation for Religious Minorities: A Promising Concept for European Antidiscrimination Law?

2010· article· en· W3123232157 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

VenueMaastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiscrimination and Equality Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReasonable accommodationAccommodationDirectiveEuropean unionLawLegislationDutySalientReligious diversityPolitical scienceDiversity (politics)SociologyLaw and economicsEconomicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In both the United States and Canada, the concept of reasonable accommodation first emerged in equality law as a means of handling religious diversity. It was then applied to other grounds of discrimination, most notably disability. In the European Union, the evolution of antidiscrimination law is following a different path: a duty of reasonable accommodation was for the first time established by the 2000 Employment Equality Directive (or Directive 2000/78/EC) but only with respect to disability. Nonetheless, the question whether a right to reasonable accommodation can be derived from the prohibition of discrimination based on religion laid down by the same Directive, or, alternatively, whether such right should be recognized in future European legislation is becoming increasingly salient.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.266 · 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