Freedom of Religion in Islam and Buddhism: A Comparison Study of the Barriers That Determines the Freedom of Religion
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
Freedom of religion is the human right that supports the individual to choose and practice a religion or belief. In the context of a multiracial society, freedom of religion should be debated openly to avoid any misunderstanding that distracts from harmonious social living. This research is a comparative study that focuses on the principles that determine the barriers of freedom of religion between Islam and Buddhism. For means of accuracy and relevancy of information, the researcher adopts the content analysis approach of the primary references in Islam and Buddhism. The research concludes that both religions share a similar scope of freedom of religion and declare freedom as a right that should be accorded to all. Both religions prioritize the social interest as the main benchmark in discussing the freedom of religion. Even though Islam awards freedom of religion to all, it nevertheless maintains some differences between the rights of Muslims and non-Muslims, i.e. that Muslims do not have the right to change their religion without meriting the label of apostate.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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