MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1941655907 · doi:10.1177/0008429815596001

“Spiritually, I’m Always in Lourdes”

2015· article· en· W1941655907 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michael Agnew

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilgrimageContext (archaeology)NarrativeIdentity (music)EthnographyPilgrimHistorySociologyAnthropologyArtAestheticsArchaeologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted with pilgrims on pilgrimages from England to the Marian shrine of Lourdes, this article focuses on the experience of serial pilgrims, those who have made the journey to Lourdes repeatedly for several years. Since the first organized pilgrimage from England to Lourdes in 1883, the Marian apparition site has been the premier destination for English Catholic pilgrims, with several diocesan pilgrimages, religious travel companies, and charitable organizations facilitating the journey each year. I argue that for many serial pilgrims, Lourdes constitutes a “home away from home,” a place that has become intimately familiar, safe, and sacred over several pilgrimages. For young pilgrims particularly, those “raised in Lourdes,” it is a formative site that is integral to their religious identity and sense of belonging. By exploring the rich narratives of serial pilgrims, I highlight the fluid boundaries between perceptions of home and destination within the context of contemporary pilgrimage.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.263
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207