Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although faith, religion and spirituality are central to the lives of millions in the global south, few scholars in the north explicitly address religion's role in development. This study explores this disjuncture in Canadian academia by analysing references to religion and related terms across 32 volumes of the Canadian Journal of Development Studies and in international development studies (IDS) course descriptions at Canadian universities. Fewer than 1 per cent of the articles and IDS courses explicitly address religion and development. An examination of other key publications in the field suggests that growing interest in religion and development in the past decade has not been reflected in the Canadian academy. Résumé Bien que la foi, la religion et la spiritualité soient centrales à la vie de millions de personnes du Sud, peu de chercheurs du Nord abordent son rôle dans le développement. L'analyse des références à la religion dans 32 volumes de la Revue canadienne d’études du développement et dans les descriptions de cours universitaires canadiens portant sur le développement international montre que cette disjonction est présente dans la recherche canadienne. En effet, moins d'un pour cent des articles et des cours traitent explicitement la relation entre la religion et le développement. L'intérêt croissant que d'autres publications clés dans le domaine des études du développement ont porté au rapport entre religion et développement durant la dernière décennie ne trouve donc pas son équivalent dans la recherche canadienne.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 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".