Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is an essential tool for those interested in the vital relationship between international human rights law and domestic policy. It explores this subject in the context of public funding for religious education in Canada, an area of controversy for well over a hundred years. This work provides in one volume a unique set of source documents concerning the legal and political history of religious education in a multicultural environment and especially in Ontario, Canada's largest province. It makes available for the first time a complete set of documents concerning the international litigation which has occurred between the Canadian government and its citizens, who have been seriously affected by entrenched religious discrimination. An introductory essay provides an overview of how religious discrimination forms the backbone of Ontario's education system. Having failed to remedy such discrimination in Canadian courts, the UN Human Rights Committee provided a mechanism to address this breach of Canada's international legal obligations. The volume is an expose of the process and the consequences of international human rights litigation before the UN Committee, and will be of special interest to others seeking to take cases of human rights violations forward to the international level. Canadian policy makers and analysts will consider this collection an invaluable resource for future consideration of the public funding of religious education in Canada, still unresolved after 135 years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.003 |
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".