MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1597415870

Woodrow Wilson and the Origins of International Religious Freedom

2013· article· en· W1597415870 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Su

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovenantReligious freedomMandateLeagueLawPolitical scienceFreedom of religionLaw and economicsHuman rightsSociologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper argues that Woodrow Wilson’s efforts to enshrine religious freedom protection in the Covenant of the League of Nations at the Paris Peace Conference brought about the first modern international legal regime of religious freedom. He sought to include a legal guarantee of religious freedom in three different contexts in the Covenant: first, in the League Covenant as a rule of universal application, and following his failure to do so, in the Mandate System and in the Minorities Protection Treaties. This is the first account to relate Wilson to issues of religious freedom protection and also the first to focus on issues of religious freedom during the Paris Peace Conference. It hopes to not only recognize Wilson’s unacknowledged personal involvement in this field but also challenges conventional notions that the religious freedom protection regime inaugurated by the Covenant largely focused on collective religious rights from the outset, when in fact, Wilson sought to apply this guarantee in all its possible guises as expediency and practicality would allow. Wilson however sought not to protect religious freedom for its own sake, but as a complement to his League, that is, to preserve world peace.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.248 · 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
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→