Libertés fondamentales et visibilité des signes religieux en France et au Québec: entre logiques nationales et non nationales du droit? (Fundamental Freedoms and Ostensible Religious Signs in France and Quebec: Between National and Non-National Regulatory Logics?)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Cet article compare la facon dont la regulation juridique du port des signes religieux se manifeste en France et au Quebec. A partir de l’histoire recente de la jurisprudence dans ces deux espaces nationaux, les auteurs reviennent sur les questions soulevees par la presence publique de la diversite religieuse, telle qu’elle s’exprime en l’occurrence a travers le port de signes religieux par des individus croyants, pour reflechir aux evolutions normatives qui, depuis les annees 1990, animent des debats plus ou moins conflictuels. Le texte souligne les questionnements communs, les incertitudes quant a la definition meme – objective ou subjective – de la religion, la question de la hierarchisation des droits et libertes, de leurs restrictions, de la mise en scene dans le droit de discours touchant a la defense de « valeurs » communes dont des notions comme la laicite ou la neutralite sont devenues des fetiches. La judiciarisation de la gouvernance publique du religieux, que l’on constate au Quebec comme en France, n’emprunte pas les memes chemins dans les deux cas. English Abstract: This article compares the manner in which the legal regulation of religious signs is conceived of in France and Quebec. Looking at the recent history of the case law in both jurisdictions, the authors examine the questions raised by the presence of religious diversity in the public sphere, notably through religious signs, with a view to reflecting on normative evolutions since the 1990s. They highlight common interrogations, uncertainties as to the very definition – objective or subjective – of religion, the hierarchization and restrictions of rights and freedoms, and the legal mobilization of discourses advocating the defense of “common values”, for which notions such as laicite and neutrality have become proxies. Yet, the judicialization of the public governance of religion, which exists in both France and Quebec, does not follow the same path in the two jurisdictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".