Politics or Piety? Debating the Function and Meaning of Religious Symbols in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I n many liberal democratic states, the presence of religious symbols in the public sphere has become a highly contentious issue.Since the 1980s, political and legal attempts to define the boundaries of religious freedom have increasingly centred on the right of citizens to wear religious symbols.In Canada, both provincial and federal courts have routinely upheld the rights of citizens to do so in the public sphere as a form of religious freedom, 1 and policy makers have generally refrained from introducing legislation that would curtail this right. 2With the proposal of Bill 60 -commonly known as the "Charter of Values" -in 2013, the Quebec government broke with convention. 3 Bill 60 was introduced with the aim of officially declaring Quebec a secular state.As a corollary, the bill proposed that all employees of public institutions and organizations -including medical staff, teachers, and university professors -be required to abstain from wearing religious symbols, such as clothing, headgear or large jewelry, in the workplace.1. Well known cases on religious accommodation include Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem,
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".