Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Tesi estudia el dret a la llibertat religiosa a partir de la seva delimitacio constitucional; en concret, a partir de la determinacio del seu objecte, que es la religio, en el marc d'un Estat que es defineix com aconfessional. L'absencia d'una definicio legal de religio es la tonica general de la majoria de normes constitucionals estatals que inclouen clausules de proteccio de la llibertat religiosa, i tampoc aborda directament el tema ni la doctrina ni la jurisprudencia. La tesi raona la necessitat de disposar d'una definicio, analitza les dificultats a que s'enfronta aquesta recerca i valora els diversos enfocaments o vies per accedir a determinar l'objecte de la llibertat religiosa. Per a aixo, es fixa en ordenaments juridics d'altres paisos, en particular del Canada, que poden oferir noves vies per avancar en el desenvolupament de la nocio de religio i de la llibertat religiosa al nostre pais. Despres d'examinar doctrina i la jurisprudencia relativa al dret a la llibertat religiosa al nostre pais, la tesi conclou que cal abandonar el concepte tradicional de religio, implicit i no escrit, pero emprat pels operadors juridics, i optar per un concepte individual i subjectiu de creences, que permeti als individus un ple desenvolupament de la seva personalitat, tal com reclama l'article 10.1 de la Constitucio Espanyola.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".