MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014288209 · doi:10.1177/000842980603500302

Interdisciplinarity in Religious and Women's Studies

2006· article· en· W2014288209 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Darlene M. Juschka

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Science and Policy Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge productionInstitutionSociologyWork (physics)Production (economics)InterdisciplinarityEngineering ethicsEpistemologySocial scienceKnowledge managementEngineeringPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines how interdisciplinarity has been adopted by, and deployed in, the production of knowledge in the university as institution. I begin by outlining three subcategories of interdisciplinarity that determine its semantic boundaries, and then shift to examine interdisciplinary work in Women's and Religious Studies. Thereafter I speak to the impact interdisciplinarity has had on knowledge and knowledge production in the university.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0110.034
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.383 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicSocial Science and Policy ResearchFrench-language works237,207