MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130247812 · doi:10.1558/jcsr.v2i1.5

Pro- and Assortative-sociality in the Formation and Maintenance of Religious Groups

2015· article· en· W2130247812 on OpenAlexaff
Luther H. Martin, Donald Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Cognitive Science of Religion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocialityNeglectSocial psychologyCognitive science of religionPsychologyProsocial behaviorCognitionAltruism (biology)Sociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of evolved mechanisms and strategies supporting religious prosociality dominate the experimental agendas of cognitive scientists of religion while neglecting religion's antisocial, assortative consequences. We question, first of all, the assumed correlation between religion and prosociality; second the hypothesis that religious prosociality plays a role in the formation of large-scale societies, as advanced by some; the neglect of the historical record in experimental design and in the assessment of experimental results; and finally, suggest that funding sources more friendly to a positive view of religions explains the research bias supporting religious prosociality.

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 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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Cognitive Science of ReligionSame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207