MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599675491

Eweida v United Kingdom

2013· article· en· W1599675491 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudenceFreedom of religionReligious freedomKingdomLawContext (archaeology)Human rightsAccommodationPolitical scienceClothingHigh CourtSociologyHistoryPsychologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2013, the European Court of Human Rights released its decision in Eweida v United Kingdom. The Court decided on applications in four freedom of religion cases, thus juxtaposing questions of religious clothing and its accommodation with more complex rights conflicts between religious beliefs and provision of services contrary to those beliefs. The Court ended the notion that the ‘freedom to resign’ resolves the former kind of case, although arguably it may still resolve the latter. Understanding why this is so, the progressive steps the Court has taken, and the questions it has failed to answer, requires some analysis. We commence with the facts, turn to the religious clothing context, then reflect more broadly on conflicts between freedom of religion and other rights, particularly in the context of comparative jurisprudence that the Court failed to examine.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligious Freedom and DiscriminationFrench-language works237,207