MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127257667 · doi:10.1177/0044118x03254564

Religion and U.S. Secondary School Students

2003· article· en· W2127257667 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John M. Wallace, Tyrone A. Forman, Cleopatra H. Caldwell, Deborah S. Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueYouth & Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityQuarter (Canadian coin)PsychologyDemographyMultivariate analysisBivariate analysisGeographySocial psychologySociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used large nationally representative samples of 8th-, 10th-, and 12th-grade students to examine current patterns, recent trends, and sociodemographic correlates of religiosity among American adolescents. The results indicate that approximately 60% of American young people feel that religion is an important part of their life, 50% regularly attend religious services, and the vast majority report an affiliation with a specific religion. Trend data suggest that key indicators of religiosity have been relatively stable for nearly a decade among8th and 10th graders and for more than a quarter century among high school seniors. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of the relationships between selected sociodemographic factors and the religion measures indicate that younger students, girls, Black and Latino youth, more affluent youth, rural youth, and Southern youth are generally more religious than their older, male, White, less affluent, urban, and non-Southern counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYouth & SocietySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207