MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6927566101 · doi:10.25949/19443584

Accommodating Sharia: : A Feminist Institutionalist Analysis of Sharia law in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom

2018· dissertation· en· W6927566101 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMacquarie University · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShariaMulticulturalismLegal pluralismPluralism (philosophy)PoliticsNormativeComparative lawState (computer science)Family law

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debates around Sharia law in Western multicultural societies are ongoing, and often draw on feminist arguments opposing multiculturalism to illustrate the "perils" of accommodating minority religious groups. An alternative focus of Sharia discussions is to consider the possibilities of legal pluralism within the state, and whether accommodation of minority religious laws is even possible. Whilst interesting, these debates do not adequately address how and why Sharia councils and tribunals have seemingly flourished in the United Kingdom, but not so in the comparable multicultural contexts of Australia and Canada. This thesis moves beyond the existing discussions of legal pluralism and the normative value of multiculturalism to examine the competing political interests that arise in debates around accommodating religious laws (specifically Sharia law), and the issues of gender equality. Drawing on theories of feminist institutionalism, I will offer a comparative analysis of the political conditions within Australia, Canada, and the UK. The key questions explored are: how has each institution influenced the experience with Sharia in each state; and what are the outcomes for women that arise within the institutional landscape. This institutional discussion will focus on two formal institutions, the legal structures of each state, and state multicultural policies; as well as two informal institutions, the influence of dominant Christian religious groups, and informal networks of men. These formal and informal institutions are examined to provide context, and better understand the development of the Sharia debate and experience in each country, as well as the outcomes for women. State law is often positioned within these debates as the "best" alternative for gender justice, as it is considered secular and "neutral". However, this fails to account for the reality that institutions, such as the law, are gendered. By adopting a feminist institutionalist approach, this thesis aims to move beyond the liberal rights framework that is typically used to discuss Muslim women and Sharia in the West. By doing so, we are better able to understand the institutional nuances that shape the experience with Sharia within countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.264 · 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