Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assuming that mere opposition to fundamentalism is counter-productive, if not hypocritical, this article calls for an understanding of the question fundamentalism seeks to answer: What is to fill the space between the ‘most sacred’ and the ‘most mundane’? It turns out that we struggle to provide better answers. If, instead of dismissing fundamentalism as a futile reaction against modernity, the ambiguous links between fundamentalism and postmodernity are explored, it is seen that modernity, late capitalism and postmodernity are intertwined in complex ways that defy standard classifications. Fundamentalism poses important questions to the contemporary world and thus deserves some sympathy. The conclusion suggests that we should, nevertheless, prefer to the negativity of fundamentalism sources of affirmation. These may be found in the spaces of the ‘most sacred’ and the ‘most mundane’ – but not simply in ‘secularity’.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".