What Hath Faith Wrought?: Faith and Law: How Religious Traditions From Calvinism to Islam View American Law by Robert F. Cochran (Book Review)
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
Faith and Law is a compilation of sixteen essays from legal academics intended to offer, to a greater and lesser extent, a meditation on “How Religious Traditions from Calvinism to Islam View American Law.” After an Introduction by editor Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Faith and Law is divided into six parts. The first essay is a deeply learned discussion of Augustine by Elizabeth Mensch. Part II consists of four essays from Reformation Protestants, and Part III includes four essays from “Home-Grown American Faiths.” Parts IV and V consist of paired essays from Roman Catholics and from an Orthodox and Reform Jew. Part VI consists of three essays, one each by a Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim. All but one of the contributors (Kisor K. Chakrabarti) is a current or former American or Canadian legal academic, and Chakrabarti taught at universities in the United States and elsewhere and practiced law in India. Each contributor offers a readable, enlightening essay, although several needed the benefit of tighter editing. And the editor offers brief and insightful introductions to many of the contributions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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