Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the perennial vitality of religion, including “religious” aspects of supposedly secular phenomena, has cast doubt on the so-called “secularization thesis,” the demise of the “demise of religion” story may have been prematurely reported. In popular culture, the new atheism of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris populates (in unintended irony) the “religion” shelves of bookshops. Though academic studies concerned with new manifestations of explicit or implicit religious life proliferate, they do not always or necessarily entail renewed respect for religion’s intrinsic claims. Scholarly fascination and disenchantment can go hand in hand. The books reviewed here all explore, from different angles, the fraught relations between ways of perceiving, thinking, telling or acting which could be called religious, and the intellectualizing drive of the scholarship which addresses them. In different ways, they beg the question how both religion and the study of religion relate to their cultural, historical and philosophical matrices, and in particular, how to understand the relation and opposition between forms of narrative appropriate to religion on one hand, and to science, history or philosophical psychology on the other.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.300 | 0.173 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".