La violence religieuse, sectaire et ethnoculturelle : numéro spécial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En abordant ce phénomène complexe qu'est la violence religieuse, sectaire et ethnoculturelle, notre ambition n'est assurément pas de lui trouver une réponse définitive qui permettrait de l'expliquer, de la prévoir ou de l'endiguer 1 .Nous espérons plus modestement fournir quelques pistes de réflexion afin d'en améliorer la compréhension 2 .Les contributions réunies dans ce numéro des Cahiers de recherche en politique appliquée ont été présentées lors d'une journée d'étude tenue le 22 février 2019 et organisée par le Centre de recherche Société, Droit et Religions de l'Université de Sherbrooke (SoDRUS) et la Chaire UNESCO-PREV.Les textes de ces contributeurs s'intéressent à diverses déclinaisons rhétoriques et à diverses manifestations de la violence religieuse, sectaire et ethnoculturelle dans l'espace occidental.Pour certains, la religion fait par essence preuve d'intolérance 3 et porte donc en elle les germes d'un appel potentiel à la violence.Pour
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".