The Spirituality of Atheist and “No Religion” Individuals in the Millennial Generation: Developing New Research Approaches for a New Form of Spirituality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As of 2011, those who identify as non-religious represented a portion of Canada’s population 2.5 times larger than the combined total of those reporting as Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Sikh, and Hindu, with no indication that the rate of growth for this population is subsiding. Despite this growing population, religiously unaffiliated spiritual millennials are going undetected in the academic literature, and there is confusion between contemporary understandings of spirituality and religiousness for both researchers and millennials. Researchers seeking to understand the spiritual lives of millennials have typically assessed the growth of this movement by the number of individuals who identify as “spiritual but not religious,” a phrase which emerged alongside the 1960s New Age movement to describe the so-called ‘spiritual seekers.’ This paper seeks to identify some of the sources of millennial spirituality, such as culture shifts during the 1960s and 70s and the secularization of the Canadian public education system, and to define a new form of spirituality unique to millennials. Alternative approaches to studying this group are proposed, and it is suggested that the phrase “spiritual but not religious” is no longer sufficient for understanding the spirituality of religiously unaffiliated individuals.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".