On the Necessity of Crisis: A Reflection on Pedagogical Conflict and the Academic Study of Religion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A pervasive, yet under‐discussed, problem in religious studies classrooms is the presence of faith crisis. Many students face a type of cognitive dissonance when faced with the critical‐analytical approach in the academic study of religion. This essay, in an open and conversational tone, addresses the learning opportunity underlying such crisis moments. The discussion begins with a delimitation of what constitutes the secular university's goals in pedagogy and research. After arguing that a reductive limitation of knowable knowledge construction is to be the focus of the university, the discussion moves to the presence of cognitive stages of development, or liminal rites of passage as analogous for explicating the learning process in which crisis moments emerge. Finally, the discussion concludes with a reflection on the coherence of reductive limitation and collaborative pedagogy.
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 | 0.029 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".