Bibliographic record
Abstract
Constitutional law – Freedom of conscience and religion – Interference with – City and mayor reciting prayers at public municipal meetings, making sign of the cross – Religious symbols prominent in meeting rooms – Atheist attending meetings and requesting that prayers cease and symbols be removed – Mayor refusing request – Mouvement laïque québécois (MLQ) taking complaint to Human Rights Commission – Commission refusing investigation of symbols but finding prayer discriminatory and sufficient evidence existing to submit to Human Rights Tribunal – City adopting by-law to regulate prayers but mayor and councillors continuing as before – Tribunal granting application and finding prayer showing preference for one religion at expense of others and breaching state’s duty of neutrality – Court of Appeal finding no discrimination on ground of freedom of conscience and religion – Whether statutory right to appeal Human Rights Tribunal decision was by way of appeal or judicial review – Standards applicable on judicial review – Whether (1) recitation of prayer at start of each council meeting and (2) by-law regulating recitation violating religious neutrality of state and interfering with freedom of conscience and religion – Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, CQLR, ch C-12, ss 3, 10; Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, ch 11, preamble, ss 1, 2, 27; Règlement VS-R-2008-40, City of Saguenay, November 3, 2008
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".