MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323972685 · doi:10.1558/pome.v15i1-2.61

Gender and Paganism in Census and Survey Data

2014· article· en· W2323972685 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePomegranate The International Journal of Pagan Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusPaganismDemographyGeographyDistribution (mathematics)Gender studiesDifferential (mechanical device)Survey data collectionSociologyGenealogyHistoryPopulationChristianityArchaeologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Researchers often bemoan the lack of hard data on the size of the Pagan movement. There are, however, some national censuses that collect data on modern Pagans. These include the censuses of four Anglophone countries – Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK. Using figures from the censuses of these four nations as well as from a large survey study, the Pagan Census Revisited, the present paper will discuss the demographic and attitudinal profiles of Pagans, with a focus on the differential distribution of gender. Congruent with prior research, the current study finds that the majority of Pagans are women – though a few traditions tend to be dominated by men. And while we uncovered certain gender-stereotypical differences between male and female Pagans, we also found numerous counter-stereotypical differences.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.100 · 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