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 OpenAlex
Reginald W. Bibby

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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