La laicidad abierta. El Rapport Bouchard-Taylor y el régimen de laicidad de Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEste trabajo analiza la idea de laicidad abierta propuesta por el Informe de la Comision Bouchard-Taylor en relacion con la discusion sobre las acomodaciones razonables y el regimen de laicidad de Quebec. Primero, presenta las circunstancias del debate y el interes del Informe. Segundo, examina los principios y valores que definen un regimen de laicidad, con especial atencion a la neutralidad. Y, tercero, discute el contraste entre las versiones abiertas y rigidas de laicidad, considerando las recomendaciones del Informe EnglishThis article analyzes the idea of open laicite proposed by the Report of the Commission Bouchard-Taylor in relation with the discussion about the reasonable accommodations and the State-religion relations in Quebec. First, it presents the circumstances of the debate and the interest of the Report. Second, it examines the principles and values of laicism, with special attention to the neutrality. And, third, it discusses the contrast between the open and rigid versions of laicism, considering the recommendations of the Report.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".