LES ENJEUX JURIDIQUES DU DÉBAT QUÉBÉCOIS SUR LES ACCOMMODEMENTS RAISONNABLES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que l’obligation d’accommodement raisonnable est appliquée par les tribunaux depuis plus de deux décennies, cette notion juridique semble de plus en plus remise en question et bien souvent mal comprise. Comment expliquer cet écart entre le droit et le monde vécu? Pour répondre à cette question, il faut d’abord examiner le multiculturalisme qui sert généralement d’arrière-plan à la politique de gestion de la diversité religieuse. Devant la confusion conceptuelle entourant la notion d’accommodement raisonnable, il importe d’effectuer un retour aux sources juridiques du problème, pour constater notamment que certains aspects demeurent non-entièrement théorisés. De plus, la philosophie politique et la théorie du droit proposent des pistes pour tenter de comprendre cet écart entre le droit et le monde vécu, notamment autour de l’apprentissage social et de la contextualisation du droit.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.001 |
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.
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".