MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011425476 · doi:10.1093/socrel/srq044

Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive Capitalism

2010· article· en· W2011425476 on OpenAlexaff
H. Jeanette Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Religion · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualitiesConsumerismAestheticsRomanticismCapitalismIdeologySociologyConsumption (sociology)TemptationHedonismReductionismModernityArtLiteraturePsychologyPhilosophySpiritualityPolitical scienceLawEpistemologySocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an avid on-and-off yoga enthusiast, I was almost giddy to read Paul Heelas's recent book Spiritualities of Life: New Age Romanticism and Consumptive Capitalism, hoping for some scholarly ammunition to justify the purchase of the hundred-dollar yoga pants I ideologically oppose yet secretly wish to purchase. Throughout the pages, my ideological opposition eventually won out, as Heelas provides an extremely well-researched treatise on contemporary spiritualities of life that encompass holistic activities and practices such as yoga, tai chi, reiki, and art therapy. Heelas dismisses the easy temptation to reduce these activities to the hedonistic consumption thesis that is prevalent in much of the relevant literature by exposing us to the underlying meaning of holistic activities. By examining the ways in which these activities can serve as countercultures to consumerism and capitalist modernity, Heelas moves away from typical conceptions of “airy fairy” spiritualities by exposing a deeper experiential significance of these practices, moving beyond reductionist consumeristic consumption models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.022
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociology of ReligionSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207