Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2003, Toronto police officers suspected that two Jamaican-Canadian brothers were involved in a series of murders that plagued the city.They hatched a plan whereby an officer of Jamaican descent would pose as a spiritual advisor or "Obeah practitioner" to the suspects' mother and exert spiritual pressure on the family to convince them to confess.Over the course of several months, the police deployed an elaborate ruse to impress the family with the officer's purported spiritual power, including staging a car accident between the officer and the mother, placing dead animals on her doorstep, and even arresting the mother on manufactured charges.The brothers finally confessed to the murder during a ritual purportedly designed to end these spiritual attacks on their family, and the prosecution's entire case rested on the statements made during the ceremony.The brothers were convicted of murder, and they appealed on the grounds that confessions made to a purported spiritual advisor should not be admissible evidence against them in court.However, in 2013, a Canadian appellate court upheld the police tactics, finding that these Afro-Jamaican rituals are not "religious." 1 This case is just one brief example of the restrictions on the freedom to practice African diaspora religions in the twenty-first century.This book is the first broad examination of the global legal challenges faced by adherents of the most widely practiced religions or belief systems of the African diaspora in the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries, including Obeah, Yoruba religions (i.e., Santeria/Lucumi and Candomblé), Umbanda,
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.401 | 0.250 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".