Bibliographic record
Abstract
EnglishWhile the comparative study of secularism has become a thriving field of research, the precise political processes underlying the governance of religion is still a field to be srutinized. Such processes cannot be understood without paying attention to the judicial arena. Building upon the burgeoning literature on the judicialization of politics, this article highlights that practices of social movement actors and public policy-makers are embedded not only in national constitutional traditions but also in global rights discourses and international judicial frameworks. Introducing case studies on France, Quebec, Switzerland, Turkey, Israel and Malaysia, assembled in this special issue, it lays out an array of methodological strategies and analytical perspectives that allow studying the multi-level dynamics, complex power configurations and ambivalent consequences of governing religion with judges. francaisSi l'analyse comparee des rapports entre Etat et religion connait un regain d'interet, l'etude des processus politiques sous-jacents a la regulation publique du religieux reste balbutiante. La multiplication des controverses judiciaires impliquant la religion invite a s'interesser a la place que tient la justice dans la gouvernance du religieux. Au croisement des champs d'etudes de l'action publique et de la judiciarisation du politique, ce dossier met en regard certaines des strategies de recherche mises en oeuvre a partir de cas et contextes varies (France, Canada, Suisse, Turquie, Israel, Malaisie). Il pointe le caractere polymorphe d'une judiciarisation imbriquant - via les usages que font les acteurs sociaux et politiques des ressources juridiques - les traditions nationales et le regime international des droits de l'Homme. Il en montre les effets ambivalents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".