MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037032468 · doi:10.1080/00358530701844684

The Power of Language and the Politics of Religion

2008· article· en· W2037032468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alí A. Mazrui

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Round Table · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthLingua francaChristianitySiegePoliticsState (computer science)Political sciencePopulationEmpireSociologyLawHistoryAncient historyHumanitiesDemographyPhilosophyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

English, the lingua franca of the Commonwealth, is also the World's most influential language in human history. The influence of English as the language of academe may be reflected in the fact that more books about all the religions of the world have probably been published in English than in any other language on earth. This is perhaps because the former British Empire has always had to deal with a multiplicity of religions within its dominions. Today, the Commonwealth of Nations comprises more than a third of the Muslim population of the world—lodged in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, and elsewhere.2 2. Statistics on religious demography may be found in the US State Department's 2006 Report on International Religious Freedom. Available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/index.htm (accessed 31 March 2007). The Commonwealth also includes about a third of the Christian countries of the world—in Africa, the Caribbean, Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and the Anglophone world of the Pacific. This article addresses such paradoxes as to why Muslims are well represented in the Commonwealth while Arabs are not, and why Christianity is under siege globally while the English language is the dominant international language.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.029
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.274 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Round TableSame topicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and FederalismFrench-language works237,207