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 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

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 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 score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.031
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