MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156379884 · doi:10.14704/nq.2010.8.4.372

NeuroTheology and Its Convergence with NeuroQuantology

2010· article· en· W2156379884 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Persinger, Paula L. Corradini, Alexandra L. Clement, Colleen C. Keaney, Mason L. MacDonald, Leah Meltz, Nirosha J. Murugan, Maxime R. Poirier, Kory A. Punkkinen, Melissa C. Rossini, Samantha E. Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroQuantology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicParanormal Experiences and Beliefs
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvergence (economics)PsychologyRight hemisphereAffect (linguistics)Lateralization of brain functionTemporal lobeCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceCognitive scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The principles of neuroscience assume and predict that all experiences are generated by brain activity as a consequence of structural patterns. A convergence of methodologies and measurements indicate that religious/mystical experiences and beliefs associated with them are predictable phenomena. The central roles of the right hemisphere, specifically the temporal lobe, and the chemistry, structure, and gene sequences that affect this region’s electrical sensitivity and intercalation with the left hemisphere are reviewed. The precarious consequences of the enmeshment between the neuronal networks that mediate the survival of the self and moral judgments are considered. The neuroquantological bases to the cellular activity that mediates these experiences suggest an imminent change in paradigm that will alter the manner in which we perceive ourselves and our relationship to the universe.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.022
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroQuantologySame topicParanormal Experiences and BeliefsFrench-language works237,207