Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the Supreme Court of Canada explain its own role in the resolution of religious freedom cases under the Charter? I argue here that we may understand the Court’s jurisprudence in this area as relying on three non-exclusive narratives of its institutional identity: the neutral manager of a volatile public, the defender of minorities, and the defender of the state. As others have argued, the overarching contemporary narrative is that of manager. I suggest that the other two narratives are contained within this larger one. They are called upon to explain the exercise of managerial discretion in one way or the other. Sometimes, the Court presents all three narratives together, but they are often in tension. The defender of minorities cannot often be the defender of the state, and a court that advocates too strongly on behalf of either a minority or the state can compromise its appearance of neutrality. Which narrative will carry the day in a given case can seem to be a product of prevailing social attitudes, making the future of religious freedom jurisprudence uncertain, despite apparently clear tests for rights infringement and the justification thereof.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".