Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract By the mid-1990s scholars of religion had begun to analyze the ideologies associated with global capitalism as a new, hegemonic world faith system, which some referred to as the Religion of the Market. Many have taken polemical positions, either arguing that it is a "false faith" which needs to be exposed, or that it is the appropriate faith for our times. Still others refuse to see global capitalism as a religion and reject the analytical paradigm altogether. This essay argues that describing the ideologies of global capitalism as the dominant faith system in the world today is indeed appropriate, and even necessary if one is fully to understand the role of religious belief and behavior in contemporary society. Moreover, since discussions of global capitalism as a faith system currently lack a coherent or widely recognized framework, adopting and refining the Religion of the Market paradigm will facilitate and improve future scholarly analysis of the faith dimensions of global economics.
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 | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".