Bibliographic record
Abstract
This doctoral thesis investigates the normative framework that informs the Supreme Court of Canada’s rulings on freedom of religion since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I seek to answer the question: Why is religion important to protect for the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)? While scholars usually agree that the SCC understands religion as a subjective and private phenomenon, questions remain regarding whether the SCC values religion as a source of individual autonomy or cultural identity. In this dissertation, I propose an alternative interpretation: I argue that the SCC values religion as a source of authenticity, i.e., as a means through which individuals define and realize their sense of self. Sketching what I term the “authenticity framework” and drawing on the case law, I show that this valuation impacts the SCC’s conception of both religion and religious freedom by bringing the focus away from religion and on the conditions, both individual and social, that are required for individuals to develop and embody their authentic sense of self. On the individual level, I demonstrate that the SCC is primarily concerned with religious claimants’ sense of integrity and ability to subjectively self-define. As a result, it casts religion analogously to secular beliefs relating to one’s self-understanding, which makes it difficult to offer a special protection to religion in law. On the social level, I demonstrate that the SCC is above all concerned with bolstering dialogue across worldviews and equality between citizens. Freedom of religion thus takes the role of a gatekeeper for the ideal of authenticity, protecting not religious liberty but the possibility for all to achieve authenticity in their life. By offering a novel and comprehensive reading of the SCC’s interpretation of religion in religious freedom cases, this thesis hopes to provide a new lens through which to think about the role of religious freedom in an egalitarian society
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".