MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1913773389 · doi:10.7202/019231ar

Defining Religion: New patterns of political governance in Catalonia and Spain1

2008· article· en· W1913773389 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mar Griera

Bibliographic record

VenueEurostudia · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismPoliticsReligious diversityCorporate governanceState (computer science)Diversity (politics)Government (linguistics)Field (mathematics)Political sciencePolitical economySociologyControl (management)Public administrationLawEthnologyEconomicsPhilosophyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historically in Spain policies to govern religion have been undertaken and controlled by the central state. After the end of the Franco era and especially since the early nineties there have been significant changes in this field. The article therefore distinguishes two main patterns of regulation of religious matters: the first of these patterns can be described as a top-down political program of government and the second one as a bottom-up policy process of governing religious diversity. The first is mainly based on the application of the “church-state” model to the regulation and control of religious minorities. The second is a new pattern which promotes a different way of dealing with religious minorities being greatly influenced by the proposals of interfaith groups and multicultural theories. It initially appeared in Catalonia and slowly develops in whole Spain. However both patterns are not completely independent; current developments in both are rather influenced by one another.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurostudiaSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207