MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991570347 · doi:10.29173/axismundi74

Religion as a Means of Maintaining Legitimacy in the Canadian State

2017· article· en· W2991570347 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Pat Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueAxis Mundi · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegitimacyState (computer science)Law and economicsPower (physics)Element (criminal law)LawSpeculationOrder (exchange)Political scienceGovernment (linguistics)SociologyPoliticsPhilosophyEconomicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“[I]f a system of rules is to be imposed by force on any, there must be a sufficient number who accept it voluntarily. Without their voluntary co-operation, thus creating authority, the coercive power of law and government cannot be established” 1 – H.L.A. Hart “For a domination...justification of its legitimacy is much more than a matter of a theoretical or philosophical speculation; it rather constitutes the basis of very real differences in the empirical structure of domination. The reason for this fact lies in the generally observable need of any power, or even of any advantage of life, to justify itself.”2 – Max Weber I. Introduction In the above quotes, Hart and Weber both point to a requisite element that all nation states share in their quest to maintain a stable order. To appear legitimate, a state must represent itself in a way that is palatable to its citizens. Put differently, a state must convince its populace that the power it wields is rightly wielded. If the majority of its citizens do not accept the legitimacy of the state, then the very stability of the state is undermined; generally, it is only a matter of time before this state is overthrown or reconfigured in a fashion agreeable to the citizenry.3 This issue of legitimacy forms the basis of this study. With a focus on Canada, the following will consider a means by which legitimate status is presented and maintained by the state. 1 H.L.A Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994) at 201 [Hart]. 2 Max Weber, On Law in Economy and Society. Trans. Edward Shils (Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1969) at 335 [Weber]. It is important to note that Weber devotes a significant amount of discussion to the definition of ‘domination’. Broadly speaking, Weber states, “in our terminology domination shall be identical with authoritarian power of command. To be more specific, domination will thus mean the situation in which: The manifested will (command) of the ruler or rulers is meant to influence the conduct of one or more others (the ruled) and actually does influence it in such a way that their conduct to a socially relevant degree occurs as if the ruled had made the content of the command the maxim of their conduct for its very own sake” (Weber at 328). 3 Hart, supra note 1 at 201.

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)0.006
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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAxis MundiSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207