MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001088505 · doi:10.1017/s0956618x1500006x

Queen of Canada and Not of Babylon: The Constitutional Status of the Crown in Canada and Freedom of Religion

2015· article· en· W2001088505 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. H. Ogilvie

Bibliographic record

VenueEcclesiastical Law Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLawCharterAppealConsciencePolitical scienceCitizenshipStatutory lawMajestyQueen (butterfly)Politics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In August 2014 the Court of Appeal for Ontario handed down two decisions concerned with the constitutional status of the Crown in Canada in relation to freedom of conscience and religion pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In one decision, Teskey v Canada (Attorney General), the court denied that the UK legislative changes to the succession rules to which Canada agreed constituted an infringement of the religious equality rights of a Canadian Roman Catholic pursuant to section 15 (the equality provision) of the Charter. In the other decision, McAteer v Canada (Attorney General) the court denied that the statutory requirement that a person take an oath to Her Majesty as Queen of Canada to obtain Canadian citizenship constituted an infringement of the freedoms of conscience, religion and expression provisions in sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Charter of persons who regarded her as an ‘Anglican Queen’.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.230 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcclesiastical Law JournalSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207