MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W93254731 · doi:10.21991/c9jq1j

KEEPING RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM UNDER WRAPS: THE CLOTHING CONTROVERSY IN SELECTED EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

2011· article· en· W93254731 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard Bauman, Sarah L.M. Weingarten

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClothingMulticulturalismIslamFundamentalismGovernment (linguistics)LawHuman rightsPolitical scienceSecularismTerrorismSociologyHistoryPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The passage by the French government in March 2004 of a law prohibiting the conspicuous display of religious symbols and the wearing of religious apparel by students enrolled in public schools caused considerable controversy, not only within France, but in other quarters as well, for the law stopped female students affiliated with Islam from wearing religious headscarves. Muslim groups both inside and outside France responded critically. Among the notorious repercussions of this law was the subsequent kidnapping in Iraq of two French journalists.1 Somewhat less publicized (but equally important) events in the past year have been decisions by European courts arising out of human rights challenges to similar bans – made in Turkey and in the U.K. – that apply to students’ attire when attending public schools or universities.2 In this instance, multicultural values that would encourage students to display their religious commitments are subordinated. They must take second place to several European governments’ goal of promoting a strictly secular educational environment.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicReligious Freedom and DiscriminationFrench-language works237,207