MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804180676

THE MEANING OF “RELIGION” AND THE ROLE OF THE COURTS IN THE ADJUDICATION OF RELIGIOUS MATTERS: AN ENGLISH AND CANADIAN COMPARISON

2015· article· en· W2804180676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M.H. Ogilvie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationSupreme courtMeaning (existential)LawPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)SociologyPhilosophyEpistemologyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent decisions from the UK Supreme Court, R (Hodkin) v Registrar General and Shergill v Khaira, considered questions with which Canadian courts continue to wrestle about the meaning of “religion” and the extent to which courts should become involved in adjudicating matters which are “religious” in the context of internal disputes. This article compares and contrasts both British and Canadian cases and suggests some general principles for adjudication flowing from them.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.011
Science and technology studies0.0200.014
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207