MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379536594 · doi:10.17118/11143/20324

Le rôle des tribunaux ontariens dans la reconnaissance des traits socioreligieux amish

2023· article· fr· W4379536594 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Raphaël Mathieu Legault‐Laberge

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de droit Université de Sherbrooke · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

socioreligious practices at the local level.Two cases are examined to explore this hypothesis, both concerning municipal law: Mornington (Township) v. Kuepfer and Stoll v. Kawartha Lakes (City) Committee of Adjustment.In the first case, the Amish community was granted the right to keep horses in a municipality where a by-law formally forbade such keeping.In the second case, the Amish community was granted the right to build a second house on farmland where such construction was forbidden.In both situations, the Courts, acting as a source of State authority, took into account the religious freedom afforded to this religious community, thus contributing to the acknowledgement of these specific socioreligious aspects of the Amish community.Los amish están presentes en el sur de Ontario desde 1822.Este grupo religioso minoritario manifiesta ciertos rasgos sociorreligiosos únicos que forman parte de su normatividad (Ordnung), como el uso de caballos para los desplazamientos y los trabajos agrícolas y la comunalización intergeneracional de los espacios de vida familiar.Estas mismas características han surgido como elementos centrales de algunas decisiones de los tribunales de Ontario.Cabe preguntarse si los tribunales de Ontario han contribuido al reconocimiento de las especificidades sociorreligiosas y normativas de los amish.En caso afirmativo, ¿a qué nivel y en qué medida?La hipótesis planteada en el contexto de este estudio postula que los tribunales han influido positivamente en el reconocimiento de los rasgos sociorreligiosos de los amish a nivel local.Los dos casos considerados para apoyar esta hipótesis (Mornington [Township] contra Kuepfer y Stoll contra Kawartha Lakes [City] Committee of Adjustment) se refieren al derecho municipal.En el primer caso, los amish obtuvieron el derecho a tener caballos en un municipio donde un reglamento lo prohibía formalmente.En el segundo caso, los amish ganaron el derecho a construir una

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de droit Université de SherbrookeSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207