O Desencantamento do Mundo: Todos OS Passos do Conceito EM Max Weber – By Antônio Flávio Pierucci
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A good example of the recent "boom" in the study of contemporary paganisms is the launching of AltaMira's Pagan Studies series, of which Researching Paganisms is the first title.As an opening of the series, the book is an introduction to the study of paganisms and, as such, a definition of the field.The book is divided into four parts which all more or less discuss the researcher's position in ethnographic research.Delivered in personal narrative, the book is a powerful legitimation of the "insider" position in ethnography-not a very surprising detail considering that most of the contributors subscribe to some form of paganism.At the same time, it is a powerful delegitimation of what is expressed as "worship of objectivity" or the "myth of objectivity."As an introduction to new ways of understanding ethnographic fieldwork, both in pagan studies and more generally, the book is invaluable.As an introduction to Pagan Studies it is more questionable: The representation of "proper" field methods is one-sided at best, and I don't have difficulties in imagining that the book might discourage many students who are not interested in embracing pagan beliefs as an insider.After all, different questions require different approaches and not all approaches require one to take a stand regarding the reality of the object of worship.It is my sincere hope that, with this important opening, Pagan Studies is not shutting out many other important approaches to the study of religion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".