MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2247834840 · doi:10.1093/ojlr/rwv024

<i>Holt v Hobbs</i>

2015· article· he· W2247834840 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Worley, D. Thayer

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford Journal of Law and Religion · 2015
Typearticle
Languagehe
FieldMedicine
TopicLegal Cases and Commentary
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompromisePetitionerLawSupreme courtStatutory lawQuarter (Canadian coin)Political scienceMajority opinionSociologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statutory right to practice religion – Substantial burden on – Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) grooming policy requiring inmates to be clean-shaven other than mustaches and quarter-inch beards for diagnosed dermatological problems – Muslim inmate challenging grooming policy under federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), asserting religious belief requiring he grow a beard but offering to maintain only half-inch beard as compromise – ADC rejecting compromise – District and appeals courts dismissing prisoner’s complaints – Supreme Court granting certiorari limited to question whether grooming policy violating RLUIPA to extent it prohibits petitioner from growing half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs – Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 USC s 2000 cc-1(a)(1)–(2); Arkansas Administrative Directive 98-04

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.005
Open science0.0070.004
Research integrity0.0640.041
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.009

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations15
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford Journal of Law and ReligionSame topicLegal Cases and CommentaryFrench-language works237,207