MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2336698237 · doi:10.1177/0008429816637638

Putting God in God’s Place

2016· article· en· W2336698237 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCatholicism and Religious Studies
Canadian institutionsCrandall University
FundersYale University
KeywordsDivinityRigourAmbivalenceAmbiguityConversationTheologySociologyNarrativePublic universityPhilosophyPolitical scienceEpistemologyPublic administrationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Should theology be a part of the Great Conversation of the modern university? Oxford and Cambridge employ theologians while in Australia theology is utterly unknown in any reputable secular university. Harvard, Yale, and Chicago maintain divinity schools while Princeton, Stanford, and the best public institutions in America keep theology resolutely on the margins—in student clubs and chaplaincies. Canadian universities present a widely varying spectrum from coast to coast. This article explores why there is ambiguity and ambivalence over such an ancient discipline, particularly dealing with critiques in the name of “scientific” rigour. It shows how theology and the public university can be mutually beneficial so long as each abides by its authentic norms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.241 · 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