MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380882516 · doi:10.1017/s0008423923000252

Débats sur la laïcité et sentiment d'appartenance chez les immigrants racisés au Québec : Mieux comprendre l'impact des « événements focalisateurs »

2023· article· fr· W4380882516 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antoine Bilodeau, Luc Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Refugees, and Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Certaines études suggèrent que le projet de Charte des valeurs du PQ et la loi 21 ont nourri un sentiment d'exclusion chez les membres des religions minoritaires. Cependant, aucune étude ne permet à ce jour de comparer le sentiment d'appartenance des minorités religieuses avant et après la mise à l'agenda de ces projets législatifs. Ancrée dans la recherche sur les « événements focalisateurs » et reposant sur des données de trois sondages réalisés en 2012, 2014 et 2019, notre étude examine l'impact des débats sur laïcité sur le sentiment d'appartenance des immigrants racisés au Québec. Nos résultats démontrent qu'un déficit d'appartenance au Québec par rapport au Canada existait déjà en 2012, mais qu'il était circonscrit à certains groupes, notamment ceux de dénominations non chrétiennes et les non francophones. Nos analyses montrent aussi qu'avec les débats sur la laïcité, le déficit d'appartenance au Québec s'est étendu aux minorités non religieuses et aux francophones.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicMigration, Refugees, and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207