La libertad religiosa como política exterior de los Estados: los casos de Estados Unidos y de la Unión Europea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La libertad religiosa —entendida como un derecho humano fundamental de las democracias politicas modernas— ademas de ser reconocida como tal en convenciones y tratados internacionales, recientemente ha comenzado a tener un rol cada vez mas importante en la politica exterior de los Estados, inspirando politicas que han comenzado a institucionalizarse formalmente. Tomando como modelo la Comision Internacional de Libertad Religiosa de Estados Unidos (1998), Canada abrio en 2013 una nueva oficina para la Libertad Religiosa, a traves de su Departamento de Asuntos Exteriores, Comercio y Desarrollo, con el fin de proteger a las minorias religiosas amenazadas, combatir el odio religioso y promover en el extranjero los valores canadienses de pluralismo y tolerancia. En el mismo ano, la Union Europea adopto nuevas lineas directrices en la promocion y la proteccion de la libertad religiosa a tener en cuenta en su politica exterior de derechos humanos. Este trabajo se propone abordar el desafio de la relacion “factor religioso-politica internacional”, plantear la crisis global que atraviesa la proteccion al derecho a la libertad y plantear descriptivamente dos iniciativas gubernamentales para la proteccion internacional de la libertad religiosa, como son los casos de Estados Unidos y la Union Europa, en el diseno de una politica exterior en materia de libertad religiosa.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".