L’antinomia del reato culturalmente motivato. Ipotesi giusfilosofiche per un ripensamento
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SOMMARIO: 1. La figura del “reato culturalmente motivato” e l’idea di multiculturalismo - 2. L’eterogeneità della categoria dei reati culturalmente motivati. Il principio di offensività come canone ermeneutico e veicolo di un approccio interdisciplinare - 3. Il “porto” del kirpan: l’approccio ‘fonografico’ del giudice di legittimità nell’ordinamento italiano - 4. La reasonable accomodation nell’interpretazione pluralista della Corte Suprema Canadese attraverso il caso Multani. Spunti per una comparazione - 5. L’„accomodation” alla prova del paradigma sicuritario. La vicenda del riconoscimento della personalità giuridica della comunità sikh in Italia. Rethinking the antinomy of the cultural offence. Hypotheses from a legal-philosophical perspective ABSTRACT: The essay is intends to problematize the epistemological perspective which, in the Italian system, upholds the judicial interpretation related to the cases that can be ascribed to the category of the so-called cultural offence. In this regard, the article is focused on the case-law concerning the religious practices of the sikh believer and on the legal recognition affair of Sikhism in Italy, identifying this empirical field as a privileged observatory. The topic of the analysis, through the Canadian approach, makes it possible to assess the canons of the prevailing hermeneutics in matter and to envisage hypotheses toward a rethinking of the theoretical assumptions underlying the criminal law enforcement, especially considering non offensive conduct of a religious nature.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".