RELIGIOUS COURTS IN THE USA AND CANADA: TYPES, MAIN FUNCTIONS AND INTERACTION WITH THE SECULAR STATE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article reveals the current situation around religious courts, arbitrations and mediation institutions in the states of North America, analyzes their structure, main functions and activities. Catholic and Orthodox church courts, courts and mediation institutions in Protestant churches and denominations, rabbinical and Sharia courts, conflict resolution bodies of Buddhists, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists are active in the United States. Generally, US authorities do not interfere in their activities if there are no violations of the rights and freedoms of citizens, but sometimes at the state level (Arizona, Wyoming, Indiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas) the use of religious norms in arbitration courts is prohibited. A similar situation has occurred in Canada, where official religious courts operate legally, but in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the activity of religious courts in the field of family relations was limited (in many respects due to fears of the formation of a parallel “Sharia justice”) The opinions of North American researchers on this issue are divided: some consider the activities of religious courts as a violation of the principle of secularism and think it necessary to ban their activities, others regard them as the realization of religious freedoms and advocate their preservation in the legislative framework...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".