MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803442747 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.3263

Beyond Religious Freedom: The New Global Politics of Religion, by Elizabeth Shakman Hurd

2018· article· en· W2803442747 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Rachel Devon

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreedom of religionReligious freedomGlobeReligious persecutionPoliticsPersecutionLawSociologyNarrativePolitical scienceBattleFreedom of the pressIdeal (ethics)Human rightsHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The international media is saturated with stories of religious violence and persecution—particularly in the Middle East. The United States has been engaged in an ongoing battle to combat this violence around the globe, often in the name of ‘religious freedom.’ The concept of religious freedom is typically portrayed as an unalloyed good—an aspiration and ideal that the international community should strive towards. Following the passing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the United States established an Office of International Religious Freedom. Canada established a similar version with its own Office of Religious Freedom in 2013. In her provocative book, Beyond Religious Freedom: The New Global Politics of Religion, Elizabeth Shakman Hurd critically examines the pursuit of religious freedom as an intrinsic good. Contrary to the prevailing narrative, Shakman Hurd provides a critique of government-led programs and policies that promote religious freedom abroad. She illustrates some of the deeply problematic consequences that occur when religious freedom is used as a tool of foreign policy, and when complex issues are defined solely in terms of religious rights and freedoms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207