How Should Public Institutions Assess Religious Identity?: The Case of Polygamy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, strong reasons have been given for both allowing and prohibiting polygamy in a North American context.The practice plays a central role in the identity of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, and opinion is divided about whether the practice is any more harmful or coercive than practices which are legally allowed. This paper asks, first, how do courts assess a religious practice, which is considered repulsive and harmful by the broader public, yet is centrally important to the identity of a minority community? and second, how can public institutions be sensitive to religious and cultural differences of this sort while providing a reasonably justified and unbiased assessment of whether this practice is indeed harmful or imposed coercively? The paper suggests that courts should be guided by three conditions, the jeopardy, validation and safeguard conditions, and shows how these conditions shape the arguments to be considered in the upcoming constitutional reference case on the criminalization of polygamy soon to be heard in Canada.
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 | 0.037 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".