Le zonage municipal à l’épreuve de la liberté de religion : une analyse en contexte québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le paysage religieux québécois est caractérisé par un fort pluralisme qui se traduit localement par des demandes de groupes religieux pour disposer de lieux de culte. Leur encadrement urbanistique constitue le « zonage religieux » dont la visée n’est pas de régir les croyances, mais d’encadrer les impacts des activités religieuses sur un territoire. Le « zonage religieux » peut être mis en relation avec la liberté de religion à travers la notion de « discrimination ». Parce que le fait d’aménager l’espace urbain repose sur des décisions qui visent la réalisation du bien commun et qui sont susceptibles de ne pas satisfaire certains groupes, se pose alors la question suivante : à quel moment la distinction opérée par le zonage urbain est-elle discriminatoire et problématique, au sens où elle porte atteinte aux droits et libertés des individus ?
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".