MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182189785 · doi:10.82308/12036

Civil marriage commissioners in the province of Saskatchewan: religious freedom and public service

2009· dissertation· en· W2182189785 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip J. Harwood

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCivil servicePolitical scienceService (business)Public servicePublic administrationLawBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis attempts to address the issue of religious freedom and public service by specifically examining the policy implemented by the Government of Saskatchewan towards its civil marriage commissioners in 2004. This work takes a critical look at four key aspects: first, reasonable accommodation – its history, its application in the Canadian context and the academic debates pertaining to religious accommodation; second, the policymaking process employed by the Province of Saskatchewan; third, Canadian jurisprudence on freedom of religion cases; and finally, contemporary academic approaches to the role of religion in the public sphere. Taken together, these issues suggest that the contemporary shift in understanding and applying norms of reasonable accommodation, in conjunction with the current judicial trend to assign religious belief to the private sphere, reinforces the notion that the religious rights of private citizens are limited when they assume a public role.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicReligious Freedom and DiscriminationFrench-language works237,207