In the (Canadian) Shadow of Islamic Law: Translating Mahr as a Bargaining Endowment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the dilemmas of Muslim women living in Canada as they negotiate between the constitutional and juridical systems of the dominant society, on the one hand, and the Muslim community, on the other. It will examine the ideological assumptions about law and multiculturalism that have worked to depoliticize the stakes of law in Marion Boyd's report, Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion. With the Islamic institution of mahr in the background, this article suggests a methodology to evaluate the costs and benefits of abstract legal rules as they are actually used by the parties in the "shadow of the law" to acquire something from the other party, make concessions, or simply put an end to the relationship. In offering a distributional narrative of legal pluralism, this article demonstrates that while legal orders produce group subjectivities in plural spaces, they also, and more importantly, distribute desires, interests, and bargaining endowments between individuals and groups in an unpredictable and often contradictory fashion.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it