MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1573775789 · doi:10.7202/1071469ar

Justifying Bill 18: A Critique of Kymlicka’s Comprehensive Neutrality

2020· article· en· W1573775789 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Nick Tanchuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePaideusis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsNeutralityAppealMoralityLawPoliticsComplaintSkepticismPolitical philosophySociologyEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manitoba’s Bill 18 provides students the legal right to form gay-straight alliance student groups within denominational and dissentient schools. Religious opponents of Bill 18 claim that the law unjustifiably imposes a homogenous moral worldview on religious families. I argue that if we appeal to Will Kymlicka’s comprehensive neutralist theory of political morality to justify Bill 18, the religious complaint is problematically vindicated. I argue that Kymlicka appeals to two bases of neutrality that ultimately fail to distinguish his view from the perfectionist theories of political morality that he officially rejects. Due to this internal inconsistency, the priority of Kymlicka’s preferred moral practices remains unjustified. For those of us who believe that Bill 18 is morally justified, an alternative approach to explaining this intuition is required.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.036
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.256
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaideusisSame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207