La (re)construction des identités religieuses / spirituelles anglicanes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ongoing developments in the Anglican Communion, most notably the unfolding controversy over “homosexuality,” serve as an excellent case study for the application of Peter L. Berger’s and Pierre Bourdieu’s distinctive sociological approaches to the study of religious/spiritual identity construction/reconstruction. As this case study demonstrates, Berger’s dialectically ordered “holy trinity” of externalization, objectivization, and internalization focuses primarily on social interactions, but largely ignores both power inequalities between individuals as well as the multi-layered context of social reality production/coproduction. Bourdieu’s dialectically ordered “holy trinity” of habitus, field, and capital also examines the process of social reality production/coproduction. By contrast, however, it does address sources of (unequally distributed) power between individuals and groups, and is adaptable to a more highly complexified multi-level social interactional scenario, but it tends to “crystallize” power, thereby obfuscating its socially mediated conditionality. A fuller analysis of religious pluralism requires a dialectically ordered theoretical approach which encompasses both dynamic social interactions, as well as the formation (and dissolution) of power sources within these interactions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".