MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989537364 · doi:10.1017/s2194607800000016

Buddhism, Human Rights and Constitutional Reform in Thailand

2007· article· en· W1989537364 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

VenueAsian Journal of Comparative Law · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuddhismLegitimacyHuman rightsState (computer science)Political scienceConstitutionState religionLawContext (archaeology)FaithCommissionSociologyPhilosophyGeographyTheologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this article is to address the relationship between Buddhism, constitutional reform and human rights in Thailand. It poses the questions: To what extent is the Thai state Buddhist in character? How are we to describe the relationship between Buddhism and the state? Can and should human rights be supported or presented as being supported by Buddhism, or interpreted according to Buddhist ideas? The historical relationship between the state and the sangha is examined, in which the state used religion to bolster the state's legitimacy. The place of Buddhism, human rights and the Human Rights Commission under the 1997 constitutional reforms is then addressed, in the context in particular of the problem of insurgency in the Southern provinces. It is concluded that the constitution-makers rightly refused to make Buddhism the state religion but that attempts to disseminate human rights understanding in Buddhist terms are justified, provided inter-faith dialogue is part of this process.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.329 · 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