Article Taking Account of Religion in Canada: The Debates over Gay and
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Using the recent debate over lesbian and gay marriage as a starting point, this article explores what it means to take account of religion in Canadian law making. The article suggests that religious views cannot be relegated entirely to the realm of the private, individual and voluntary. The article further suggests strategies that could be used by courts and legislators to engage religion more fully and directly than is often the case at present. Résume ́ : Utilisant le débat récent sur le mariage des homosexuels comme un point de départ, cet article explore ce qu’il signifie de tenir compte de la religion dans la justice canadienne. Cet article propose que les opinions religieuses ne peuvent pas être reléguées totalement au domaine privé, individuel et volontaire. De plus, cet article propose les stratégies que la justice et les législateurs peuvent employer a ̀ engager la religion plus directement et entièrement qu’en ce moment.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".