MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334068530 · doi:10.1177/0037768614524321

Religious collectivities in the era of individualization

2014· article· en· W2334068530 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deirdre Meintel

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Compass · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualitiesMainstreamSocialityPower (physics)SociologyConsciousnessAffinitiesSpiritualityEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research in Quebec by a team that I direct indicates that religious collectivities still have very important roles to play despite the individualization of religion and the changing relations between individuals and religious institutions. The analysis focuses on the smaller, more marginal spiritualities that attract native-born Québécois, who often maintain some ties with the Catholic Church. Here we find abundant evidence of individualized, hybrid spiritualities but we also see that religious sociality remains essential for maximizing the effectiveness of religious (spiritual) practice, providing a framework for religious apprenticeship, supporting those in ritually produced altered states of consciousness, and validating religious authenticity of the practices and beliefs of participants. While collectivities remain important in more mainstream religious congregations (Catholics and Pentecostals, for example), the specifically religious elements of communality in these groups are sometimes obscured. By examining more marginal currents, we try to show the enduring power of religious sociality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial CompassSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207