MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A World of Atheism

2013· book· en· W1757407267 on OpenAlexaff
Ariela Keysar, Juhem Navarro-Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaCzechAtheismGlobePopulationCommunismMarital statusGeographyDemographyPolitical scienceSociologyDemographic economicsPsychologyLawEconomicsPhilosophyReligious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay describes the demography of the nonbelieving population: atheists and agnostics (negative atheists). It describes the size, age structure, and characteristics, such as gender, marital status, and educational levels, of both atheists and agnostics in various countries around the world. There are approximately 450 to 500 million nonbelievers worldwide, including both positive and negative atheists, or roughly 7 per cent of the global population. Nonbelievers are typically young, disproportionately male, and educated, and are most likely to live in Northern Europe, Japan, and communist or formerly communist nations. Atheism varies greatly around the globe from as little as 2 per cent in Venezuela to 10 per cent in Ireland, 21 per cent in Spain, 41 per cent in France and as high as 55 per cent in the Czech Republic. The essay discusses the likelihood of increases in the nonbelieving population with shifts in emerging large economies, specifically India and China.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207