MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1774729703 · doi:10.1163/15700682-12341354

Reforming Philosophy of Religion: Some Methodological Cautions

2015· article· en· W1774729703 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Q. Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueMethod & Theory in the Study of Religion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicStudy and Philosophy of Religion
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsManifestoEpistemologyPhilosophy of religionSociologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kevin Schilbrack’sPhilosophy and the Study of Religion: A Manifestoproposes to reform the traditional Philosophy of Religion by reference to three goals that it should have. In pursuit of those goals he argues for a pair of hierarchical two-stage methodologies. I argue that there are tensions between his defence of these methodologies and the philosophical apparatus he brings to bear in explicating the goals themselves.

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)0.168
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.239
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1680.239
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.055
Scholarly communication0.0150.021
Open science0.0100.011
Research integrity0.0120.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethod & Theory in the Study of ReligionSame topicStudy and Philosophy of ReligionFrench-language works237,207