Multi-confessional societies in Russia and India: Models of relations between the state and religious associations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
© 2015, Canadian Center of Science and Education. All rights reserved. This paper explores an approach to understanding the optimum model of state-religious relations in secular multi-confessional countries, which is one of the most relevant issues of today. The purpose of the paper is to identify the features of a cooperative model of state-religious relations in Russia and India. The study is based on the comparative approach. Having analyzed the legal framework and the practice of implementing this model in Russia and India, we came to the conclusion that, despite the constitutional principles of the secular state and the equality of religious associations in the countries under study, certain elements of state religious preferences exist, however, they fall within the specified model. We believe, the information contained in the article will enable to better understand the causes of inter-confessional tensions and assist in finding ways to prevent conflicts involving religious communities not only in Russia and India, but also in other multi-confessional countries.
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".