Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of “sacred space” has received attention from various scholars in the field of religious studies, as well as other academic disciplines. However, twentieth century contributions are specifically relevant to the study at hand. Moreover, it seems only natural to begin an analysis of “sacred space” by describing what is meant by the word “sacred” in its territorial connection with “space.” Therefore, specific understandings of “the sacred” will be explored, such as those developed by French sociologist Émile Durkheim and French historian of religion Mircea Eliade. Following this, the modern construct “cyberspace” will be explored, as the reader is led into the main topic under investigation: the existence of sacred space incyberspace, with a special emphasis on the cyber-social network MySpace. This part of the investigation will explore the various correlations that exist between these understandings of “sacred space” and those found in MySpace, arguing that the latter qualifies as being analogous to the former by the way in which it functions for its users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".