Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le principal objectif de cet essai est de développer plusieurs idées évoquées par les participants (es) durant le colloque. Après avoir effectué un bref survol historique du développement des départements de sciences des religions au Canada, nous examinerons les questions suivantes : les sciences des religions souffrent-elles d'un complexe d'identité ? Le projet d'une Religionswissenschaft tel qu'imaginé au dix-neuvième siècle est-il irréalisable ? Y a-t-il une politisation croissante de notre champ d'études ? Que devons penser du sempiternel débat entre les soi-disant réductionnistes et les non-réductionnistes ? Pouvons-nous vraiment ressentir les influences insidieuses des « lois du marché » dans la politique universitaire ? Y a-t-il trop de programmes de troisième cycle en sciences des religions ? Enfin, quelle est la place des subventions de recherche dans la carrière universitaire ?
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".