Bibliographic record
Abstract
The secular experience of Sunday in the rhetoric of rock ’n’ roll (sex, drugs and subversion) proves Eliade’s formulation of the profane readily encapsulates with the term’s popular understanding. As David Chidester articulates, rock ’n’ roll is often viewed as “the antithesis of religion, not merely an offensive art form, but a blasphemous, sacrilegious, and antireligious force in society.” In the same way that Christianity sought to differentiate itself from Judaism, so too does rock ’n’ roll seek to make ground from the traditional terms and Puritanical values with which Christianity regularly deals. As in most attempts at differentiation, the differentiator can never escape those fundamental commonalities it shares with the differentiated. Judaism and Christianity, for instance, differ most dramatically in practice and belief, but share a similar discourse. Despite the concerted efforts of some to categorically separate the two into diametric oppositions, Christianity and rock ’n’ roll share certain fundamental qualities which, as Chidester advances, ultimately render the relationship between the two ambivalent; “rock ’n’ roll has appropriated some of the elementary forms of religious life,” and so has religion, particularly Christianity, appropriated some of the elementary forms of rock ’n’ roll. The relationship between the two, then, will prove as complicated and as strained as the relationship between Christianity and its antecedent, Judaism. Just as Sunday stands out as a site of differentiation between Christianity and Judaism, a battleground upon which claims to religious meaning are contested, so does Sunday serve as an access point into the nexus of Christianity and rock ’n’ roll, where the significance of the day, and by extension the legitimacy of the respective traditions, is alternately contested, conferred, and confirmed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.012 |
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".