Does the Establishment Clause Matter? Non-Establishment Principles in the United States and Canada, 4 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 451 (2002)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
during consensus among the justices.Instead, the Court has struggled to balance the desire for some level of determinacy against both the difficulty of doing so where first principles remain hotly contested and the attractions of case-by-case balancing.A brief overview of the Court's history in dealing with each of the religion clauses will help us to understand the current state of the debate. A. The Establishment ClausePerhaps the persistent disagreement of the justices conceming the proper application of the Establishment Clause should not be surprising.Legal historians have noted that eighteenth century Americans supported the non-establishment principle for a number of distinctly different reasons. 1 Some feared that a religious establishment would threaten individual freedom; others feared that government support would ultimately threaten religion, by subordinating it to government control.2 And since the First Amendment was originally a limit only on the national govemment, some who supported state religious establishments favored the clause because it would prevent Congress from overriding their local establishment with a different, national religion.3 In addition, it is clear that the authors of the clause were not drawing upon some clearly defined common law or internationally recognized concept.While the concept of freedom of religion, in the sense of toleration, antedated the First Congress, 4 non-establishment as an independent principle was something quite new and rare.5 In-I See, e.g., Arlin M. Adams and CharlesJ.Emmerich, A Heritage of Religious Liberty, 137 U. PA.L REV. 1559 (1989); Donald L. Drakeman, Religion and the Republic: James Madison and the First Amendment, 25J.CHURCH & ST.427 (1983); Carol Weisbrod, On Evidences and Intentions: "The MoreProof, the MoreDoubt, "18 CONN.L
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".