权利的边界：宗教自由vs. 同性恋平权——从奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案谈起 (Rights in Conflict: Religious Freedom versus LGBT Rights)
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
Chinese Abstract: 2016年4月13日，中国“同性恋婚姻维权第一案”被判败诉，同性恋人士申请结婚登记的诉求被法院驳回，在中国和世界范围引起广泛关注。2015年，欧洲人权法院和美国最高法院分别作出了有利于同性恋权利的判决，特别是奥贝格费尔诉霍奇斯案对美国同性恋婚姻合法化具有里程碑意义。判决通过后，美国奥巴马总统就此发表演说，其中有一句后来被广泛引用的话：“只有当所有美国人都被平等对待的时候，所有人才更自由” 事实果真如此吗？不同的个人和团体可能有不同的评判。其中以同性恋平等权与宗教自由权最为尖锐且似乎难以妥协，将成为一个值得长期关注的课题。总体而言，在法律层面上，同性恋平等权与宗教自由权的冲突主要包含三个层次的问题： (１)平衡宗教自由与同性恋平等权的冲突领域；(２)性取向是否能像种族及性别因素一样成为构成直接歧视的理由(ground)；以及(３)在政教分离的宪政原则下，国家在多元社会应扮演什么样的角色。这三个方面实际上紧密相联，无论在司法实践还是学术探讨中都尚未形成定见。本文旨在通过美国已有的部分典型司法案例（包括加拿大个别案例）来梳理和探讨这些相关问题，希望抛砖引玉，将来能有更多对这些问题的研究。 English Abstract: This paper analyses the conflicts between LGBT rights and religious freedom by examining a series of constitutional cases in the United States and Canada, with an aim to address the question regarding how to balance the rights and freedoms of different communities and what role the state shall play in a diversified society.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it