Bibliographic record
Abstract
This three-part article highlights a personal liaison with the concept of implicit religion as both cultural analyst and religion theorist. The lack of unity and methodological rigour which characterize the reception of the concept of implicit religion to date fuels the desire to apply it in a systematic fashion to a contemporary youth culture phenomenon which satisfies the orphic metaphor of initiation, night-time and music, and has been widely interpreted as harbouring some sort of religiosity or rapport with the sacred: the English-born-turned-global phenomenon of techno-music-fuelled raves. The first section presents general information on raves, methodological considerations and an ‘ethnographic’ account stemming from field research conducted with a small group of Montreal ravers in 2002. The second section is interpretative, starting with a synthesis of existing interpretations according to which raves are driven by various religious ‘anthropo-logics’. The three definitional vectors of implicit religion are then systematically applied to the material presented in section one, while drawing parallels with Bailey’s (1997) presentation. The third and last part uses the prior analysis as a basis from which to critique the concept of implicit religion. It tries to show how the definition of implicit religion has shortcomings with regards to the orphic—or, more precisely, the transgressive—pole of religion, paramount in the study of raves. It also argues that the concept of implicit religion is tributary of a typically ‘modern’ inflexion permeating sociological theories on religion; an inflexion which has oriented research to date in this field and which has led to confusion as to the status of implicit religion as religion or ‘something like it’. The article closes with a few hints as to which theoretical avenues the author thinks could overcome the conceptual difficulties outlined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".