MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1507271524 · doi:10.21991/c95t0s

Legislators and Religious-Based Reasoning

2013· article· en· W1507271524 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Diana Ginn, David Blaikie, Micah Goldstein

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismPoliticsDemocracyArgument (complex analysis)LawPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Action (physics)Rule of lawSociologyEpistemologyLaw and economicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a secular, multicultural, liberal democratic society founded on the rule of law, is it appropriate for legislators (or political candidates) to refer to religious beliefs or texts when discussing a government initiative or urging action on a particular issue? Such references might be used for various purposes: to explain the speakers’ own beliefs; to emphasize that an issue has been around for a long time and therefore should be taken seriously; to elucidate historical influences on a particular law; or to give weight to a particular argument by buttressing it with religious authority. In Canada today, do ethics, law, or political theory offer persuasive reasons to limit any such references to religion in parliamentary debate or political campaigning?

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.253 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207