MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Freedom of Religion

2017· book-chapter· en· W2741794033 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benjamin L. Berger

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalismConstitutionJurisprudenceFreedom of religionPolitical scienceLawSupreme courtNeutralityState (computer science)Constitutional lawIdeologyInterpretation (philosophy)PoliticsSociologyDemocracyHuman rightsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter examines freedom of religion in the Canadian Constitution. After locating the modern protection of freedom of religion within Canadian constitutional history, the chapter explores the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of that right, drawing particular attention to how constitutional law defines and understands religion itself. The chapter then turns to three themes that have emerged as central in the freedom of religion jurisprudence, but that also reflect broader issues within Canadian constitutionalism: the instability of the public/private divide as a means of analysing constitutional problems, the tension between individual rights and regard for collective and community interests, and the paradoxes involved in the aspiration for state neutrality. Ultimately, the chapter argues that freedom of religion offers a unique avenue into understanding the deeper themes, tensions, ideologies, and politics at work in the Canadian state, as well as the history and logic of its constitutional order.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→