MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2201648175

The Perceptions of Religion in Mexican Public Space by the Leaders of Minority Religions: Caught Between the Desire for Recognition and the Demands of Participation

2011· article· en· W2201648175 on OpenAlexaff
Alma Mancilla

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Estudios Sociales · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligious pluralismPluralism (philosophy)Public spaceSociologySecular stateSpace (punctuation)PerceptionContext (archaeology)State (computer science)Political scienceGender studiesLawPoliticsEpistemologyHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the issue of religion in public space in Mexico and its regulation by the state. In particular, it focuses on the views of minority-religion leaders. Empirically driven, though with some theoretical reflections regarding the analysis of religion in public space, the article emphasizes the role of the state in both privatizing and opening up public space for religion. The subsequent section presents the Mexican case. In particular, it presents the results of a series of interviews with minority religious leaders in Mexico in order to understand how minority religious communities view the issue of religion in public space in Mexico. In the context of growing religious pluralism, and what seems to be a mounting interest by contemporary states to include religion in their public agenda, this article strives to include the voices of religious leaders themselves.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Estudios SocialesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207