On Collective Constitutional Rights: Lessons for Religious Rights from Language Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Should institutions or communities, rather than individuals, be entitled to bear and assert religious rights? This article examines Canada’s recent jurisprudence on linguistic rights as a potential source of inspiration for answering this question, which the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada has declined to answer definitively. Recent Canadian jurisprudence has had little trouble in understanding the collective dimensions of linguistic rights, and in recognizing the institutional bodies that may assert them. It has, in fact, asserted the importance of a community's autonomy over its institutions as an aspect of linguistic rights. Admittedly, the constitutional text gives more explicit support to the collective and institutional dimensions of language rights. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Canada’s explanations of the why linguistic rights are best understood collectively can apply with similar force in the religious context. This lends some support to the claims that religious rights have collective dimensions that are obscured by an overly individualistic approach.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".