MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016703919 · doi:10.1177/1088868309349693

Religiosity as Identity: Toward an Understanding of Religion From a Social Identity Perspective

2010· article· en· W2016703919 on OpenAlexafffund
Renate Ysseldyk, Kimberly Matheson, Hymie Anisman

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Social Psychology Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReligiositySocial psychologySocial identity theoryReligious identitySocial identity approachIdentity (music)Identity formationPsychologySocial groupAtheismFundamentalismSociologyEpistemologySelf-conceptLawPoliticsPolitical scienceAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a social identity anchored in a system of guiding beliefs and symbols, religion ought to serve a uniquely powerful function in shaping psychological and social processes. Religious identification offers a distinctive "sacred" worldview and "eternal" group membership, unmatched by identification with other social groups. Thus, religiosity might be explained, at least partially, by the marked cognitive and emotional value that religious group membership provides. The uniqueness of a positive social group, grounded in a belief system that offers epistemological and ontological certainty, lends religious identity a twofold advantage for the promotion of well-being. However, that uniqueness may have equally negative impacts when religious identity itself is threatened through intergroup conflict. Such consequences are illustrated by an examination of identities ranging from religious fundamentalism to atheism. Consideration of religion's dual function as a social identity and a belief system may facilitate greater understanding of the variability in its importance across individuals and groups.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.016
Scholarly communication0.0050.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations845
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Social Psychology ReviewSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207