Nonreligion as a Substantial Category in Canadian Law
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
Since the 1960s there has been a considerable increase in the number of Canadians who identify as having “no religion”. The increase in the nonreligious notwithstanding, little is known about the beliefs, values, and practices of the nonreligious and what might generally entail a “worldview” commonly understood as nonreligion. Nonreligion therefore remains somewhat of a quagmire to sociologists of religion. This lack of understanding is particularly prevalent in the realm of law, particularly Canadian law as the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to define nonreligion as it has done religion. Drawing on the results of the discourse analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2013 Bedford decision this article seeks to explore the category of nonreligion as it is conceptualized in legal discourse about sex work. This article takes into consideration the changing religious and nonreligious diversity of Canadian society and argues that nonreligion is, like religion, framed as having its own positive content.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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