Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author describes the Canadian conception of equal religious citizenship, one in which religious freedoms and religious equality rights are allied in advancing the right of religious persons to participate equally in Canadian society without abandoning the tenets of their faith. The core idea is that society must accommodate individuals’ freedom to hold and express religious beliefs and engage in religious practices unless doing so would interfere with the rights of others or with compelling social interests. Canadian law takes a more robust approach to equal religious citizenship than can be found in the human rights jurisprudence of many other countries. The Canadian understanding of religious rights is a positive manifestation of a commitment to a non-assimilationist model of citizenship, one aimed at promoting equality and multiculturalism. The author reviews a number of recent incidents that indicate that in the current climate characterized by fear and outrage directed at the violence and oppression perpetrated in the name of religious fundamentalism, religion is too readily and quickly seen as a threat to equality or security, and all religious freedoms become vulnerable to being too lightly overridden. The resulting downward pressure on religious rights is as great a threat to the Canadian model of multicultural citizenship as that posed by religious fundamentalism.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".