Accommodation Without Compromise: Comment on Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alberta law requires that all driver’s licence holders be photographed. Members of the Hutterian Brethren objected on religious grounds to having their photos taken and challenged the constitutionality of the photo requirement. In the Hutterian Brethren case, a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held that the photo requirement breached section 2(a) of the Charter but was justified under section 1. The majority adopted a weak standard of justification under section 1. A restriction will be justified as long as the law has a legitimate purpose and the restriction is necessary to advance that purpose. The majority’s adoption of this weak standard of justification under section 1 reflects the Court’s ambivalence about the state’s duty to compromise its policies to make space for religious practices and more deeply about the nature of religious belief and its place in the public life of the community. While it may sometimes be useful to treat religion as separate from politics, the insulation (and exclusion) of religion from public decision-making will inevitably be partial and pragmatic. Accommodation will occur at the margins of law, and will involve only minor trade-offs that do not significantly affect public policies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".