Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it