Circulation de la religion sur la place publique locale aux États-Unis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les chercheurs et les critiques sociaux présument souvent que la religion influe sur la vie publique en nous fournissant des motifs que nous utilisons pour justifier nos opinions sur les enjeux sociaux. Cet article examine étroitement, d’un point de vue ethnographique, la façon dont le langage religieux circule dans deux associations volontaires locales, des sites de ce que j’appellerai la place publique locale. Dans ces deux associations de dénomination protestante, l’une ayant une théologie libérale et l’autre conservatrice, les membres présument qu’un « bon » croyant n’est pas quelqu’un qui parle abondamment de ses motifs religieux, mais quelqu’un qui agit en fonction de ces motifs. Dans les deux cas, cette notion commune d’identité religieuse impose des limites ou même le bâillon auxdiscussionsreligieuses. Contrairement à ce que croient les sceptiques et les défenseurs de la religion sur la place publique, il est fort possible que le simple citoyen américain ne soit pas intéressé à faire intervenir la religion dans les discussions publiques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".