MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791453748 · doi:10.11575/prism/34042

Freedom of Conscience and Religion

2006· article· en· W2791453748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Bowal

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscienceFreedom of religionPolitical sciencePhilosophySociologyEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many quips about conscience, such as "a clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory," or the French proverb, "there is no pillow so soft as a clear conscience." Harper Lee (1926-) said, "the one thing that doesn't abide by majority rule is a person's conscience." Many people would agree with the aphorism "a conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good." Today, the Charter, under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms," in section 2 guarantees to "everyone", the following fundamental freedom: "(a) freedom of conscience and religion." The other freedoms in this section are: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. The constitutional right to a free conscience is not found in the US Constitution. Black's Law Dictionary defines "liberty of conscience" as the liberty for each individual to decide for oneself what is personally religious. Conscience is the moral sense of right or wrong, especially a moral sense applied to one's own judgment and actions. In 1985, the Manitoba Court of Appeal in Mackay v. Manitoba defined "conscience" as "self-judgment on the moral quality of one's conduct or the lack of it ..."

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.938

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207