MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392596847 · doi:10.1177/17461979241234533

Reasonable accommodations and security agendas in multicultural societies: Secular and faith-based approaches to citizenship education in Canada, France and England

2024· article· en· W4392596847 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Hugh Starkey

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation Citizenship and Social Justice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Pharmacy, Dalhousie University
KeywordsMulticulturalismFaithCitizenshipSecular educationPolitical scienceNew englandIslamophobiaSociologyGender studiesLawPublic administrationPoliticsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In liberal democracies citizenship education is a form of secular worldviews education that focuses on politics and promotes human rights as universal principles. Canada, a bilingual federal state with connections to both Britain and France, illustrates both a liberal nationalist approach, comparable to Britain, in the Anglophone provinces, and radically secularist policies, comparable to France, in the province of Quebec. In a context of global migration and demographic diversity, Canada was a notable pioneer in developing educational responses to its state policies of multiculturalism and human rights. Canadian scholars Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka developed theories of recognition and reasonable accommodation that accepted religion as both a marker of identity and a set of principles to inform behaviour and decisions. However, national security agendas have also driven education policy in Canada and Europe in response to terrorism motivated by ideological interpretations of religion. Security concerns curtail freedom of religious expression in secularist traditions but also in liberal traditions that recognise the salience of religion. The article argues that education for cosmopolitan citizenship challenges security agendas based on promoting nationalism and that recognition and reasonable accommodation are more likely to promote social cohesion and preserve traditions of democracy and human rights.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0400.029
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducation Citizenship and Social JusticeSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207