MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2098317283

Comparative Constitutional Law & Religion

2010· article· en· W2098317283 on OpenAlexaff
Ran Hirschl

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalismAtheismPoliticsPolitical scienceLawConstitutional lawIslamSociologyReligious studiesPhilosophyDemocracyTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rule of law and the rule of God - two of the most powerful ideas of all time, an “odd couple” of sorts, diametrically opposed in many respects, yet at the same time sharing strikingly similar characteristics, each with its own sacred texts, interpretive practices, and communities of reference - seem destined to collide. Their charged encounters are further accentuated by the intersection of two broad trends: the return of religion to the forefront of world politics and global convergence to constitutionalism. Religion and the belief in God have made a major comeback. From the fundamentalist turn in predominantly Islamic polities to the spread of Catholicism and Pentecostalism in the global south, and from the increase in religiously devout immigrants in Europe to the rise of the Christian right in the United States, it is hard to overstate the significance of the religious revival in late twentieth and early twenty-first century politics. At the same time, the world has witnessed the rapid spread of constitutionalism and judicial review. Constitutional supremacy - a concept that has long been a major pillar of the American political order - is now shared, in one form or another, by over one hundred and fifty countries and several supra-national entities across the globe. In this chapter (forthcoming in Tom Ginsburg and Rosalind Dixon, eds., The Research Handbook in Comparative Constitutional Law, Edward Elgar, 2011) I delineate two key aspects of the tense intersection of constitutional law and religion worldwide: (i) the range of constitutional models - from atheism or strict separation to full enshrinement - for arranging “religion and state” relations; and (ii) the main types of religion and state constitutional controversies as they have manifested themselves under each of these models over the last few decades. Because the constitutional status of religion varies considerably across constitutional models, there appears to be more cross-country divergence in the comparative constitutional jurisprudence of religious freedom than with respect to most other freedoms. I identify the main existing constitutional models for arranging the relationship between state and religion, and, where applicable, and illustrate each model’s unique features by reference to landmark court rulings that define the rules of engagement between state and religion in each setting.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→