MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128172718 · doi:10.1111/0021-8294.00018

Canada's Mythical Religious Mosaic: Some CensusFindings

2000· article· en· W2128172718 on OpenAlexaffabout
Reginald W. Bibby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaithChristianityMulticulturalismCensusProtestantismMonopolyMythologySociologyEmigrationReligious diversityReligious studiesDiversity (politics)Gender studiesEthnologyPolitical scienceHistoryLawTheologyDemographyPopulationAnthropologyEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive world‐wide emigration to Canada has resulted in the widely‐held perception that this self‐declared, “multicultural”country is characterized by considerable religious diversity. National census data, however, suggest that such a religious mosaic is largely a myth. The proportion of Canadians who identify with Christianity remains high, while those who adhere to Other Faiths has risen only slightly over time. To the extent that religious intermarriage takes place—primarily with Catholics and Protestants—the tendency is for Other Faith women and men to raise their children in their partner' tradition. As a result of such assimilation patterns, Christianity continues to enjoy a significant numerical monopoly in Canada.The census further reveals that smaller new religions are also having difficulty making inroads. In short, Canada is characterized by an extremely tight “religious market” that continues to be dominated by Catholic and Protestant “companies.”

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Scientific Study of ReligionSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207