Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers similarities between types of religious obligation and obligations to observe or address human rights. The paper asks if there are any developing themes or rules to help us to know which, of religion or human rights, trumps the other and if so when? The paper addresses such issues from the background of an Orthodox Jewish approach to human rights. Human rights appear to be cultural rather than rationalist since they are not universal. Since no right is absolute and therefore all rights are relative what happens when religious duties clash with human rights or when the right to practise a religion clashes with some other human right? Three problematic areas of Jewish religious practice are considered: circumcision, kosher treatment and slaughter of animals and the get divorce in which the man has to give the woman the divorce. The law of the State is the one which must be obeyed as a principle of Jewish law. If we are in the world of competing rights or balancing rights then Dworkin has much to say. Cultural and religious dress and traditions are causing problems on the European continent, arranged marriages might be right, but forced marriages wrong. The paper ends with the balanced rights of a Canadian Charter case on a Québecois Succa. Paper delivered by Professor Avrom Sherr, Director, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at Colloqium on Religion and Human Rights, February 28th 2005, Institute of Commonwealth Studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".