The Constitutional Dynamics of Religious Manifestations: on Abstraction from the Religious Dimension
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The justification grounds for a special right to religious freedom have been scrutinized in the public and the scholarly debates across liberal democracies. In the public debate, the legal admissibility of some religious manifestations has been challenged for reasons that suggest religious manifestations have been favored in law qua religious. In the scholarly debate, the focus has been on the “specialness” of religion and the justification grounds for singling out religion qua religion for a favored treatment in law. However, recent developments show that religion has also been singled out qua religion for a disfavored treatment. This project pays attention to both angles of the debate on law and religion. To this end, it combines the outcomes of six separate articles, each touching upon a different aspect of this debate. As such, it elaborates in the first four articles on the question whether religion qua religion deserves special legal solicitude. Subsequently, it explores in the last two articles on singling out religion qua religion for a disfavored treatment in law.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it