Bibliographic record
Abstract
When assessing claims concerning bans on the use of religious symbols in the public sphere, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) generally frames the analysis within the clauses of freedom of religion under article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), justifying restrictions based on unconvincing and conflicting views of the state duty of neutrality. There is almost no attention or effort to consider the discriminatory potential of such bans based on article 14 of the ECHR, even in cases where the applicants have invoked article 14 to challenge them. The Aristotelian approach to equality has dominated the ECtHR case law under the non-discrimination clauses of article 14, with positive developments only recently, and on specific grounds of discrimination. Laws and policies that affect religious expression through symbols are met with little enthusiasm by the ECtHR concerning evaluation of their effects on specific groups. In the Canadian system, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has long abandoned formal equality as the only approach under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights. The equality of a measure is evaluated by a substantive equality approach, which focuses on the effects of the treatment, looking at the full context and the situation of the affected group. The group dimension of section 15 substantive equality offers a powerful analytical tool for capturing and exposing the effects of general bans on the use of religious symbols on religious minorities. Studying the SCC’s approach should incentivize the ECtHR to develop article 14’s substantive equality potential in order to identify the discriminatory nature of the legislative bans on the enjoyment of religious identity through the use of symbols. A robust substantive conception of nondiscrimination clauses under article 14 would enable a structured evaluation of vulnerabilities, group disadvantages, and intersectional effects that such bans typically entail
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.009 |
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".