MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116349764 · doi:10.5287/ora-5rknrqgm0

A systems theoretical and reflexive law framework for the regulation of religious family life

2022· dissertation· en· W7116349764 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Freedom and Discrimination
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArts and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsReflexivityNormativePsychological interventionFamily lawState (computer science)Family lifeReligious lawConceptual framework

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the best institutional relationship between law and religion in family life? This question arises in response to a double-bind: some individuals within religious groups experience discrimination in their communities. However, in seeking civil remedies these individuals may be forced to abandon parts of their religious identities: they struggle to express themselves as both religious individuals and bearers of human rights because the systems that mediate their experience of the world make absolutist demands upon them. This Thesis makes three central contributions based on reflexive law: <i>First</i>, it identifies reliance on direct, command and control interventions in religious and family life as a common thread across existing models. Despite different conceptual positions on the relationship between law and religion, these interventions have tended to rely on and assume direct forms of State regulation. <i>Second</i>, it argues that systems are resistant to these direct, external interventions, leading to a trilemma: ineffectiveness, unresponsiveness or incoherence. This Thesis uses the trilemma as an analytical lens to deconstruct the examples of mahr agreements and religious divorce across four example jurisdictions: UK, Canada, India and Israel. This analysis establishes two criteria to structure decisions about the circumstances and manner of State interventions in family life: first, interventions should preserve functional differentiation and communicative freedoms. Second, interventions ought to be justified according to the normative criteria of relational autonomy, substantive equality and care. These criteria – reflexive and normative - are interwoven: reflexivity is underpinned by values and in turn these values are necessary for this vision of a functionally differentiated society. <i>Third</i>, this Thesis proposes a reflexive model for devising particularised, indirect interventions intended to alter these systems and modify power structures. This Thesis defends an arrangement that promotes bounded self-regulation of religious family life through a decentralised, collaborative and democratically experimental model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it