Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is both an introductory chapter and a substantive contribution within an edited collection exploring the institutional and community aspects of religious freedom, with some focus (albeit by no means exclusively) on recent developments in Canadian religious freedom law. The chapter highlights the arguments that are to come from the various authors within the collection (Hon. Louis LeBel, Howie Kislowicz, Moin Yahya, Shauna van Praagh, Alvin Esau, Daniel Mark, Elizabeth Clark, Maddalena Giungi, Kent Donlevy et al, Don Buckingham, Faisal Bhabha, Janet Epp Buckingham, Victor Muniz-Fraticelli, Mary Anne Waldron, Michael Plaxton & Carissima, Sarah Morales, and myself with Stefan Kirchner and Elisa Ruozzi). However, it also makes substantive arguments about a number of the issues that cross-cut some of these pieces, with attention particularly to community, corporate, and institutional aspects of religious freedom. For example, the chapter examines an often underexplored facet of the debates about whether Trinity Western University's application to open a law school in the context of complex debates about its community covenant, exploring just why it is that such a school might have a community covenant and what that covenant means within the religious life of the community. The chapter, like aspects of the collection, ultimately claims that religion is a vital part of the lives not only of individuals but of communities as well. Religious freedom jurisprudence needs to continue to recognize this reality effectively through strong protections even in the context of challenging questions. That there are ties that bind within religious communities gives rise to some of these questions, especially in the context of the ways in which religious communities have dimensions that are countercultural to contemporary liberalism, though those differences would be precisely why liberalism claims to offer protection to religious communities.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".