MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074424970 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.21.1.001

Ian McEwan’s <i>Enduring Love</i> in a Secular Age

2009· article· en· W2074424970 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Maxine Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTheological Perspectives and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscendence (philosophy)PostmodernismCharacter (mathematics)SpiritualityProtestantismChristianitySociologyPhilosophyPsychoanalysisHistoryReligious studiesAestheticsTheologyEpistemologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ian McEwan’s 1997 novel Enduring Love no character declares a belief in God except a mad stalker suffering from a delusional syndrome, and that character does not appear to hold recognizable theological or doctrinal positions of historical/institutional Christianity. On the other hand, the novel focuses on the conflicts between rational, emotional, even spiritual, behaviour as the characters search for enduring love in a postmodern culture. These ordinary characters’ interactions as they respond to a hot air balloon accident help to define and interpret the nature of religion and spirituality in our “secular age.” What characterizes our “secular age” and the nature of its religious impulses McGill University philosopher Charles Taylor aptly examines in A Secular Age (2007). Taylor traces the historical threads emerging from the Protestant Reformation that now appear in the 21st century as multiple alternatives for making sense of life and experiencing fullness. Using Taylor’s analysis as an interpretive lens, this article explores how an “immanent framework” both frustrates and opens possibilities for manifestations of transcendence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.015
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicTheological Perspectives and PracticesFrench-language works237,207