Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a measure of how central religion is to humanity's confrontation with reality that attempts to explain it provoke so much controversy. Since the nineteenth century, thinkers have repeatedly tried to explain religion as a natural phenomenon. Since science is our name for how we study nature, these were attempts to naturalize religion employing the science of the time. In his book on the classical theories of religion, James Thrower (1999) categorizes naturalistic theories: religion as human construct, or as primitive error, or as psychological or social construct. The views of Marx and Freud, the classical sociologists Durkheim and Weber and the classical anthropologists Tyler and Malinowski, broadly fit these categories. Since the late 1960s, there has been a revolution in the human sciences. A stance has emerged based on the new cognitive sciences of the mind and brain; an explosive inter-disciplinary approach that tells us as a species new things about who we are. The research paradigm now brings together linguistics, philosophy, psychology, computing, anthropology, archaeology, neuroscience, biology and evolutionary theory. Rightly, this is having an impact on how we can think about cultural forms of life and the social order. Whole new fields have emerged such as consciousness studies and computational psychology. With respect to religion, this has taken diverse forms. Most recently, the new research programme of evolutionary psychology has tried to show how religion, viewed in terms of certain cognitive processes, could have emerged from the evolution of the human mind and brain.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.348 | 0.161 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".