MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2563238548

Hanging in the Balance: The Rights of Religious Minorities

2016· article· en· W2563238548 on OpenAlexaffabout
Faisal Bhabha

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceLiberalismLiberal democracyMulticulturalismDemocracyPluralism (philosophy)State (computer science)ImmigrationLawLaw and economicsSociologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, Canada, like many other western countries with high immigration, has experienced the social impact of its rapidly changing demographics. One particularly notable line of cleavage has seen the claims of religion tugging on the fabric of Canada s liberal democratic rights structure. Such claims have challenged majoritarian values and pushed the cultural limits of legal tolerance. This highlights one of the paradoxes of the liberal state s recognition of robust multicultural protections: When rights are invoked to shield beliefs and practices that directly contradict majoritarian values, particularly those concerning sex and sexuality, the protection of minorities becomes an onerous burden for the liberal state. Such tensions underscore the interconnectedness of culture and morality, while testing the seriousness of liberal commitments to normative pluralism and diversity.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.031
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→