Freedom of Religion at the Supreme Court in 2009: Multiculturalism at the Crossroads?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religious toleration has meaning only when it leads to the acceptance of decisions that one finds unpalatable or incomprehensible. Otherwise, when religious toleration only means respect for differences within a generally acceptable spectrum of options, it requires no constitutional protection. It is because a majority may feel compelled to act against a minority, may feel sufficiently irritated, repelled or dismissive of a minority that constitutional protection is needed. The article critically examines the decision in Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren as an indication a waning commitment to multicultural values. The article suggests that freedom of religion has often been interpreted as an ambivalent commitment to multiculturalism, rather than a devotion to freedom of conscience, and that as the commitment to multiculturalism is declining, so is the protection for freedom of religion.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".