Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exporting Freedom: Religious Liberty and American Power discusses the history of American religious freedom advocacy, which is prone to polarization, often driven by political or ideological interests in the present day. We have, on the one hand, the “new critics,” as political scientist Daniel Philpott has called them. They include people like Elizabeth Shakman Hurd and Winnifred F. Sullivan, who tend to highlight the power and influence of religious freedom advocacy in the American foreign policy establishment. Their argument is both political and philosophical, advocating that when superpowers call one thing “religion” and another thing not, that power cascades through the international system, changing, challenging, and even marginalizing other kinds of religious experience or expression. For them, religious freedom is an “industry,” it is a piece of a hegemonic, ideological infrastructure. On the other hand, we have those advocates like Thomas Farr, former director at the Office of Religious Freedom, who can be downright pessimistic about the prospects of American-led religious freedom advocacy. In a particularly damning quote on Capitol Hill, he once remarked that he could not think of a “single country” that had meaningfully changed its religious freedom posture as a result of American advocacy since the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) (https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/11/our-failed-religious-freedom-policy). Hardly a monolith of hegemonic power, Farr sees a foreign policy establishment operating with, at best, a veneer of human rights advocacy, under which lies a fairly standard package of realist, hard power motivators. It is a battle that wages back and forth, and policy coherence is an early casualty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.004 |
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".