MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3195289244

Insulated from Justice? Religious Expulsion Before Canadian Courts in the post-Highwood Era

2021· article· en· W3195289244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Schenk

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticeLawPolitical scienceCriminologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Judicial consideration of religious disputes prompt concerns that the legal system may delve into issues of a spiritual nature that should enjoy some insulation from legal comment or intervention. These concerns are only heightened in instances where the dispute concerns the very serious issue of the expulsion of a member from their religious community. While necessary care is warranted in these sensitive circumstances, a blanket prohibition on legal intervention in instances of religious expulsion creates the possibility that a member of a religious community may experience the devastation of expulsion in an unfair and unjust manner. This paper, written prior to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral v Aga but anticipating its outcome, argues that Canadian law lacks a proper framework to facilitate appropriate legal consideration of these sensitive disputes where such consideration is necessary.\nL’examen judiciaire des litiges religieux suscite des inquiétudes quant à la possibilité que le système juridique s’immisce dans des questions de nature spirituelle qui devraient être protégées de tout commentaire ou intervention juridique. Ces inquiétudes sont encore plus vives dans les cas où le litige porte sur la question très grave de l’expulsion d’un membre de sa communauté religieuse. Bien qu’une attention nécessaire soit justifiée dans ces circonstances délicates, interdire de manière générale l’intervention juridique dans les cas d’expulsion religieuse crée la possibilité qu’un membre d’une communauté religieuse fasse la douloureuse expérience de l’expulsion d’une manière injuste et inéquitable. Dans le présent article, rédigé avant la décision de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’affaire Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Canada St. Mary Cathedral c. Aga, mais anticipant son résultat, nous soutenons que le droit canadien ne dispose pas d’un cadre adéquat pour faciliter l’examen juridique approprié de ces différends sensibles lorsqu’un tel examen est nécessaire.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0420.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→