Bibliographic record
Abstract
IN HIS RESPONSE to my book, Crossing and Dwelling, a theory of religion that emerged from five years of fieldwork among Cuban American Catholics at a shrine in Miami, Aaron Hughes raises two criticisms. First, my theory does not account for his minyan in North West Calgary. I would have to know much more about those “real flesh and blood Jews” and more about what he wants to interpret to offer a sustained analysis, but I suspect that such an analysis is possible. If I am right in concluding that Hughes wants to interpret “the mourner's qaddish” in domestic spaces, then my fuller account might begin by noting that religion as dwelling situates devotees in time and space—including in the body, the home, and the cosmos—and religion as crossing imagines an ultimate horizon of human life and prescribes ways of crossing it. I then could continue with a textured representation of that mourning ritual as a corporeal crossing that confronts embodied limits and traverses a stage in the life cycle (136–150). After learning much more about how the Canadian Jewish mourners in that minyan understand death—and I suspect they disagree among themselves—I might continue by discussing how they map and traverse life's ultimate horizon (150–156). Those Jews might imagine that cosmic crossing as a change in condition or in location, as transformation or transport, to use terms taken from my typology of religious teleographies (152). That, in any case, is the outline of a possible interpretation. Hughes might not find this analysis illuminating—as always, much depends on the particular interests of the interpreter—but I do not have enough information—or space—to give a fuller account here. So, I decided, it might be helpful to engage another issue raised by him.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.045 | 0.060 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".