Bibliographic record
Abstract
With primary reference to two Supreme Court rulings – Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem ([2004] 2 SCR 551) and Ktunaxa Nation v. British Columbia (Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations) ([2017] 2 SCR 386) – the focal points of this study are twofold. In the first part, the authors analyse Amselem’s definition of religion with reference to concepts and theories that have a well-entrenched place in the field of religious studies. They contend that even as Amselem frames religion as an ontological entity, the Court’s definition is best understood as a particular type of social construct – namely, an ‘ethno-definition’ that is polythetic in approach. Segueing from a discussion of Amselem, the second part of this study concerns the issue of why – or perhaps whether – the Amselem articulation of religion remains relevant. In this regard, it is argued that there is a palpable transition between Amselem and Ktunaxa in terms of how the Supreme Court analyses the concepts of religion and religious freedom under the Charter.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".