MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161019658 · doi:10.33356/temenos.7913

Disciplinary Anxieties in the Study of Religion

2007· article· en· W2161019658 on OpenAlexaff
Willi Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueTemenos - Nordic Journal for the Study of Religion · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicStudy and Philosophy of Religion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReductionismPluralDisciplineCompassEpistemologyArgument (complex analysis)SociologyMonismAnthropocentrismPossession (linguistics)PropositionPhilosophySocial scienceEnvironmental ethicsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After remarking on some common worries that trouble the academic study of religion, the article presents an argument for an anthropocentric stance and analytic preference as the directional compass, or an intellectual alignment, in the disciplinary practices of Religious Studies. At the core of this stance is a ‘reductionist’ commitment to a corrigible theoretical monism, which is, however, compatible with plural analytics or methodologies. Keywords: Study of religion, theories of religion, disciplinarity

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.262 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTemenos - Nordic Journal for the Study of ReligionSame topicStudy and Philosophy of ReligionFrench-language works237,207