Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that constitutional law’s inability to deal with religion in a satisfying way flows, in part, from its failure to understand religion as, in a robust sense, culture. Once one begins to understand the Canadian constitutional rule of law itself as a cultural form, it becomes apparent that law renders religion in a very particular fashion, and that this rendering is a product of law’s symbolic categories and interpretive horizons. This article draws out the elements of Canadian constitutionalism’s unique rendering of religion and argues that, although Canadian constitutionalism claims to understand religion as a culture, this is true only in the thinnest of senses. More accurate (and more illuminating) is the claim that law’s view of religion is, itself, profoundly cultural. Cet article avance que l'incapacite du droit constitutionnel a composer avec la religion de maniere satisfaisante decoule, en partie, de son insucces a comprendre la religion comme une culture—dans un sens plein. Une fois que l'on commence a comprendre la primaute du droit constitutionnel canadien elle-meme comme une forme culturelle, il devient evident que le droit interprete la religion d'une facon tres particuliere, et que cette interpretation est un produit des categories symboliques et des horizons interpretatifs du droit. Cet article extrait du constitutionnalisme canadien les elements de l'interpretation unique de la religion, et affirme que meme si le constitutionnalisme canadien pretend comprendre la religion comme une culture, ceci n'est vrai que dans le sens le plus restreint. Plus exacte (et plus edifiante) est la pretention que la facon dont le droit voit la religion, est, elle-meme, profondement culturelle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".