Freedom of religion vs. substantive equality: Value-based resolution of conflicts in the context of the Ontario sharia law debate
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
The debate in Ontario regarding religious based family arbitrations highlights the need to clarify the values that should guide the resolution of conflicts between freedom of religion and equality. Clashes involving religion are unique, as religion is both a ground upon which one may be oppressed, and a vehicle through which discrimination against others is perpetuated. Grounding rights conflicts in the value of human dignity means that where state action is concerned, the protection of freedom of religion would not permit the state to infringe on the equality rights of others. In the human rights context, private religious organizations would be given room to discriminate in certain narrow circumstances. Judgments in Charter and human rights cases have explicitly and, more often, implicitly, taken this approach. An explicit articulation of underlying values is necessary in order to avoid having the Charter working at cross purposes so that the perpetuation of inequality results.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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