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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".