Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, Australia has been having a debate on whether it should enact a statutory Charter of Rights of a kind similar to that in Britain, Canada and New Zealand. While there are arguments for and against this held by people from all sectors of society, some of the most organized opposition has come from churches and Christian organizations. The church groups opposed to a Charter are not at all against recognition of human rights - far from it. However they oppose a Charter. Paradoxically, most of the churches and organizations perceive religious freedom to be under threat from the growing antipathy among secular liberals towards exemptions under anti-discrimination legislation for faith-based organizations, and from the chilling effect upon freedom of speech arising from vague and poorly drafted 'anti-vilification' laws concerning religion. There are also concerns about the respect being given in Australia to freedom of conscience. A particular focus of Christian concerns is the right of faith-based schools to appoint staff committed to that faith. Why then would churches not support a Charter of Rights to protect religious freedom? This paper explains the concerns of the churches opposed to a Charter. They argue that contemporary Charters of Rights may in fact not protect religion very well at all, that they fail to enact Article 18 of the ICCPR, that they give an enormous discretion to decision-makers to disregard human rights, that they may be used to support agendas hostile to religious freedom, and that governmental human rights organizations are rather selective about the human rights they choose to support. Christians who are opposed to a Charter of Rights or who have serious doubts about it would be less opposed to it if they thought that the legislators and policy-makers would take all human rights seriously, and faithfully protect freedom of religion and conscience in the manner required by Article 18 of the ICCPR and other human rights instruments.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| 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".