Religious Refusals: A Distinctive Manifestation of Religious Freedom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
My thesis examines whether religious refusals differ from affirmative religious actions. Mainly, my thesis studies the structure and properties of religious refusals and explores whether the Supreme Courts of Canada and of the United States, as well as lower courts from both jurisdictions, have been sensitive to this distinction so as to inform the adjudication process of the religious freedom claim at stake. In particular, my thesis explores how courts understand and interpret the substantiality of the burden in religious refusals. For such purpose, it relies on religious actions and examines them to determine whether the courts under study have applied the standard consistently. My thesis proposes that religious refusals differ from religious actions and that religious refusals elicit certain properties in discussing religious freedom claims. Given the relevance of the structure and properties of religious refusals, courts should consider both in their adjudication process. Even so, my thesis is not focused on whether religious refusals should be granted or denied. My focus is only the recognition of refusals as a distinct religious instantiation. Therefore, whether courts should ultimately accept or reject religious refusals and how claims of refusals should be balanced against other rights at stake is not the focus of my research. My analysis draws on the constitutional law of Canada and the United States. By exploring case law from both jurisdictions, my thesis breaks down the properties of religious refusals, particularly the conceptualization and application of the substantiality of the burden. I argue that because courts have not been sensitive to the distinction between affirmative religious actions and religious refusals, their approach to the substantiality of the burden is more consistent with one specific type of religious instantiation, i.e., an action.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".