MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556595640

Physicians and Marriage Commissioners: Accommodation of Differing Beliefs in a Free and Democratic Society

2008· article· en· W1556595640 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Iain T. Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudenceAccommodationDemocracyDissentFree Exercise ClauseLawPolitical scienceOpt-outConstitutional rightFreedom of choiceConstitutionFirst amendmentPsychologyBusinessPoliticsSupreme court
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian constitutional jurisprudence has come to recognize an approach that is inclusive of differing beliefs. The effects of this approach are examined in this paper with respect to the freedom that physicians and marriage commissioners have to perform their duties in accordance with their faiths. A free and liberal Canadian society cannot refuse to protect the conscientious free choice of its citizens. Their right to dissent must be defended whether or not the origin of their payment is the public purse.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.048
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207