MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977682295 · doi:10.1177/000842980103000309

Becoming answerable for what we say: Colonialism and the Pax AAR

2001· article· en· W1977682295 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Johannes C. Wolfart

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresidential addressColonialismPresidential systemSociologyLawEnvironmental ethicsPolitical sciencePhilosophyPoliticsPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Margaret Miles' 1999 Presidential Address to the American Academy of Religion (AAR), while undoubtedly well-intentioned, may have extremely negative implications for the AAR as a whole. In striving for inclusivity, Miles has simply declared an end to a crucial différence and debate within the AAR. Moreover, since Miles advocates replacing intellectual disagreement with essential différences, her advances are not only unwelcome—at least to some members of the AAR—but also potentially oppressive. This essay argues that the AAR as Miles envisages it would indeed be inclusive, but certainly not pluralistic. Instead, her discourse echoes some particularly insidious aspects of colonialism. These are illustrated, finally, with reflections on annual meeting of the AAR in Nashville's Opryland, November 2000.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207