MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063188889 · doi:10.4000/assr.23305

The religious expert in American courts

2011· article· en· W2063188889 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wìnnìfred Fallers Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives de sciences sociales des religions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHarvard UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaPrinceton UniversityUniversity of CambridgeYale UniversityEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsAmbivalenceScope (computer science)Relation (database)ObstacleLawPolitical scienceReligious freedomSociologyPsychologySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines how academic experts contribute to the discussion of court cases concerning the defense of religious freedom in the US Based on a study of relevant cases in which the scope of the first amendment has been debated, and relying on her own experience as an expert in some of these court cases, the author addresses the question of who is legitimate to define what counts or not as religious. She also studies the ambivalent relation of the American public to academic expertise. While some consider the role of experts as necessary to the formation of fair decisions, others view it as an obstacle to the expression of people's will.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.043
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.265 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives de sciences sociales des religionsSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207