Bibliographic record
Abstract
If we follow the historical survey that opens Jacques Waardenburg's famous two-volume work, Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion, the scholarly study of religion begins study of the fetish. Charles de Brosses' Du Culte des dieux fetiches, ou parallele de l'ancienne religion de l'Egypte avec la religion actuelle de Mgritie, which appeared in 1760, is the first example Waardenburg cites of systematic study of religious data. In this work, Waardenburg comments, de Brosses both studies fetishism as it was found in West Africa and elsewhere, point [ing] to the parallelism between this fetishism the worship of and inanimate objects, and similar phenomena from the ancient Egyptian and Greek religions, and elaborates general theory of fetishism, declaring it to be a primordial form of religion in which man, be cause of his fear and weakness, imagines that things are animated and worships them he does animals (Waardenburg 1974: 1, 8). There at the beginning of modern discourse on method and theory,1 fetishism would then involve, from the outset, the idea of funda mental fear that man defends himself against by endowing object with life and potency that it does not have. The fetish object be longs to fantasy that makes idol out of commonplace thing. And for de Brosses, Waardenburg remarks, fetishism is typically primitive and pagan, the example of an earlier religion still
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 | 0.032 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".