Bibliographic record
Abstract
En France et au Canada, la liberté de religion constitue une liberté de premier rang protégée par de nombreux textes. Si la France a inscrit dans sa Constitution le principe de laïcité de la République, en revanche, au Canada le droit constitutionnel ne le reconnaît pas mais l'Etat canadien repose en matière religieuse sur le principe de neutralité. Le travail de thèse consistera à comparer notamment les décisions françaises et canadiennes afin de distinguer le raisonnement qui sous-tend chaque approche et ainsi mieux comprendre leur fonctionnement en particulier en ce qui concerne les principes de neutralité (Canada) et de laïcité (France) et leurs conséquences quant à la gestion juridique des revendications religieuses.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Comparative legal analysis of freedom of religion in France and Canada; constitutional law, not the research system.
The dissertation compares constitutional approaches to religious freedom rather than studying research.
Comparative constitutional law on religious freedom in France and Canada, not the research system.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".