MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792601705 · doi:10.1177/0037768617745480

The inclusion of nonreligion in religion and human rights

2018· article· en· W2792601705 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Compass · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBaptismInclusion (mineral)LegislatureNarrativeState (computer science)SociologyReligious lifeInclusion–exclusion principleSecular statePolitical scienceLawReligious studiesGender studiesPhilosophyPoliticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An aspect of the protection of religious belief and expression is the protection of those who are nonreligious. Though this may seem counter-intuitive, the rising number of ‘nones’ in many countries reveals the extent to which religious establishments shape day-to-day life in a manner that is experienced as coercive by the nonreligious. Examples include: the recitation of prayers in state spaces (municipal councils, legislatures); the display of religious symbols in schools or legislative bodies; the performance of religious rituals such as baptism to ensure one’s children have access to schools and so on. This article examines the growing area of tension between ‘the religious’ and ‘the nonreligious’ using the examples of the display of majoritarian religious symbols in public spaces and religion in education to explore: (1) the contours of religious establishment; (2) the narratives of exclusion that are woven through contests between the religious and nonreligious; and (3) the coercive impact of majoritarian religion.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.345 · 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