Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, the author first deals with an overview of the socio-demographic characteristics of the Muslim community in Canada, especially in Quebec, and of its educational experiences in Quebec schools. She then analyzes in more depth three important controversies that have targeted the Muslim community in the last 20 years, respectively, regarding the teaching of Arabic at the end of the 1980s, the wearing of the Muslim veil in the mid-1990s and the wider reasonable accommodation debate, which did not specifically target it, in 2007–2008. In the third part based on a major survey of Quebec schools, she, nevertheless, argues that to some extent, these controversies have permitted to foster, to a certain degree, the adaptation of public schools to Muslim students ’ needs. Résumé L’auteure donne d’abord un aperçu des caractéristiques socio-démographiques de la communauté musulmane au Canada, et plus spécialement au Québec, ainsi que de son expérience éducative dans les écoles québécoises. Elle analyse ensuite, de manière plus approfondie, trois controverses qui ont visé la communauté musulmane ces vingt dernières années qui concernent respectivement, l’enseignement de l’arabe à la fin des années 80, le port du voile islamique aumilieu des années 90 ainsi que le débat plus large sur l’accommodement raisonnable en 2007–2008 qui ne la visait pas spécifiquement. Dans la troisième partie, en se basant sur une enquête quantitative importante dans les écoles québécoises, l’auteure fait valoir que ces conflits ont toutefois favorisé une certaine adaptation des écoles publiques aux besoins des élèves musulmans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".