Claims for Protection Based on Religion or Belief
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persecution for reasons of religion is one of the five grounds enumerated in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. The travaux préparatoires do not include any discussion of religion as a Convention ground for protection. The Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status contains three paragraphs (71–73) addressing religious persecution, which demonstrate the intent that the Convention ground be interpreted by reference to international norms on freedom of thought, conscience and religion. To date there has been very little interpretive guidance on religion-based claims. The approach to determining the key elements in a refugee adjudication — what is a religion, what constitutes persecution in the context of religious practice, when is the persecution ‘for reasons of’ the individual's religious beliefs — are less clear today than they were when the 1951 Refugee Convention was drafted. This article surveys the jurisprudence of religion-based claims of four State parties to the Convention (the United States, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom), identifies relevant issues and trends, and proposes an analytical framework for religion-based claims which is derived from international norms of protection for religion and belief.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it