MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990520694 · doi:10.1558/imre.v10.i1.4210

The Implicit Religion of Organs

2008· article· en· W1990520694 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueImplicit Religion · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeImmortalityEthnographySociologyEpistemologyTransplantationOrgan transplantationAestheticsAnthropologyPhilosophyMedicineTheologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Religion is not absent from the study of organ transplant. However, it is the formal, explicit components of religion that are attended to. This paper argues the concept of implicit religion more aptly describes and evaluates the language, rituals and symbols that pervade recipient narratives, transplant communities and broader public discourse about organ exchange. Drawing on ethnographic research with transplant recipients and other transplant populations, the paper endeavours to show how this hermeneutic tool illuminates both the individual and collective dimensions of transplant. An implicit religion of organs is evident in the transformations that transplant recipients attest to. An implicit religion of organs also underwrites contemporary understandings of death and immortality. And, finally, an implicit religion of organs is deployed in civil ceremonies designed to solidify, engage and envision the republic.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.259 · 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