Analysis Of The Controversial Provisions Of Anti-conversion Ordinance In Recent Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental rights to equality, life, and religion have all been deemed to be violated by the law that forbade the unlawful conversion of one faith into another. Individuals who witness or participate in a conversion claim that the Ordinance places undue pressure on both parties because it requires them to swear before the district magistrate that the conversion was the result of free will and that no dishonest marriages or other unethical methods, such as fraud or misrepresentation, coercion, undue influence, or allurement, occurred. It is necessary to make this declaration both before and after the conversion. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the individual who started the conversion to demonstrate that the interreligious union was not influenced by marriage or any other dishonest methods, including deception, compulsion, undue influence, or allurement. Such a rule of procedure has the effect of discouraging individuals from getting married in another religion and acting as a disincentive to getting married in any religion at all when combined with fines based on such careless laws
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".