Sincerely believing in freedom: a reconstruction and comparison of the interpretation of the freedom of religion and belief on the Canadian Supreme Court, the South African Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Those who believe – including those who believe divergently and those who disbelieve – can clash in daily life with others who believe or disbelieve differently. They can come into conflict with laws and regulations or with state institutions that disturb, interfere with their lives based on those beliefs. When these conflicts reach the courts, they are adjudicated under the freedom of religion and belief. Sometimes, similar cases lead to different outcomes in different jurisdictions. The notion that judicial interpretation matters for human rights is almost uncontested. This study is interested in the standard interpretations of the freedom of religion and belief by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, and the European Court of Human Rights. From each of these Courts, 15 cases were selected and systematically analyzed to reconstruct the standard interpretations. They have been compared to find similarities and differences, in terms of optimal protection of believers. The study also analyses and compares the standard interpretations from the perspective of Cass Sunstein’s judicial minimalism. The ultimate goal is to find best practices for optimal protection of believers in the judicial interpretation of the freedom of religion and belief and to enable possible judicial borrowing.<br></p>
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it