MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068048093 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.26.2.244

Popular Journalism, Religious Morality, and the Canadian Imaginary: Queers and Immigrants as Threats to the Public Sphere

2014· article· en· W2068048093 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sharday Mosurinjohn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoresImmigrationAntipathyQueerSociologyThe ImaginaryPublic sphereOpposition (politics)IslamGender studiesTransgressivePolitical sciencePoliticsLawHistoryPsychologyPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, opposition toward GLBQ identities and practices has been almost entirely religious in nature. On the other hand, antipathy toward “undesirable” immigrant profiles—ironically, often those perceived as homophobic and misogynistic—has been articulated through arguments about the supposed incompatibility of their religious values (usually Islamic) with “Canadian” mores. This paper analyzes a variety of national news media to demonstrate how the transgressive figures of the immigrant and the queer are composed in a powerful and particular way through journalistic attitudes toward and understandings of religion. In particular, I examine a discursive framework emergent in reporting on two recent tragedies—one, the 2011 suicide of the gay Ottawa teenager Jamie Hubley, and the other, the 2009 Shafia family “honour killings.” I argue that this reporting disingenuously evokes a commitment to tolerance without occasioning a substantial interrogation of what is really being tolerated and why.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0300.036
Scholarly communication0.0150.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207