Bibliographic record
Abstract
People who are committed to religious freedom are generally also committed to protecting the conditions for the cultivation of religious life. Because of the deep linkages between religious belief and practice and religious institutions, it can seem natural and straightforward to move from championing religious freedom to championing religious freedom for religious institutions themselves. Members of the Supreme Court of Canada indicated their readiness to make this move in a 2015 case involving a Catholic secondary school in Quebec. In this article, I challenge the idea that according religious institutions section 2(a) protection in their own right is either a natural or a straightforward consequence of a commitment to collective religious freedom. I describe the intellectual history and characteristics of religious institutionalism and summarize the claims of its principal Canadian proponent. I then outline several ways in which religious institutionalism clashes with our basic constitutional commitments. Finally, I develop several prongs of a feminist response to religious institutionalism. I highlight the normative character of questions about the constitutional status of religious institutions, the gendered nature of the relationship between religious institutions and individual rights-holders, and the organic and dynamic features of religious institutions. I argue that we must approach institutional religious freedom claims cautiously and resist any interpretation of section 2(a) that would entrench and shield from internal resistance a singular, institutional religious voice.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".