Law, Religion, and Feeling Included/Excluded: Case Studies in Canadian Religious Freedom Litigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on a small qualitative study of three religious freedom cases, this article uses litigant narratives as springboards for reflection on the theme of inclusion in the Canadian political community. The article attends to the affective dimension of inclusion, focusing on whether participants felt included or excluded. Successful litigants told narratives of Canada as a country in which they could be included in public life without forgoing their religious practices. The narratives of unsuccessful litigants were more complex. These particular litigants did not have a desire to participate in public practices and institutions. Rather, their narratives understood religious freedom on a contractual basis, portraying their loss in court as a breach of covenant. Moreover, though these narratives contained themes of rejection and exclusion, participants said that they had faith enough in their eventual success that they would stay in Canada rather than emigrate.
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 | 0.020 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.076 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| 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".