MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2560223691 · doi:10.1400/238464

Gli accomodamenti ragionevoli in materia di libertà religiosa tra giurisprudenza della Corte europea e della Corte canadese

2015· article· it· W2560223691 on OpenAlex
Marcella Ferri

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDialnet (Universidad de la Rioja) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageit
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutralityDutyJurisprudenceLawReasonable accommodationImpartialityPluralism (philosophy)Supreme courtPublic sphereRelation (database)State (computer science)Freedom of religionSociologyPolitical scienceConstitutional courtIdentity (music)Human rightsConstitutionPhilosophyPoliticsEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After analysing the features of tbe duty lo reasonable accommodation, applied by the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to religion practises, tbe article aims to underline that the reasonable accommodation supposes an inclusive notion of State neutrality. This notion, while imposing to State authorities an attitude of impartiality towards religious convictions, does not imply the complete exclusion of religion from the public sphere. The second part of the article focuses on the jurisprudence elaborated by the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the manifestation of religious identity in the workplace. While recognising the principie of non discrimination, the Court seems really hesitant to identify a duty to accommodate in relation to religion practises. According to the thesis argued in the article, this trend is strictly linked with the principies elaborated by the Court on the Sta te neutrality and on the religious pluralism of the public sphere. With speaal regard to the wearing of religious symbols the Court has been admitting some significant restrictions to the manifestation of religious identity in the public area

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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