MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345187480 · doi:10.1177/0022022116644983

In Search of “Religion Proper”

2016· article· en· W2345187480 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ian Hansen, Andrew G. Ryder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHostilityReligiosityKuala lumpurMulticulturalismSocial psychologyPsychologyNull hypothesisPersecutionNull (SQL)Test (biology)Religious studiesMathematicsPolitical scienceStatisticsPhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In two cross-cultural studies, we examined the relationship between intrinsic religiosity (IR; inwardly held religious devotion), coalitional rigidity (CR; a rigid adherence to the superiority of the norms and beliefs of one’s own group), and intergroup hostility (IH; morally impugning or wishing persecution on members of other groups). For Study 1, we analyzed a number of single-item interview questions in a data set collected from 10,068 people in 10 nations. For Study 2, we conducted our own surveys in two multicultural samples: Vancouver, Canada, and Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. In all 18 religious subsamples from both studies, there were null or negative independent relationships between IR and some form of IH, and null or positive independent relationships between CR and such hostility. The results suggest that this pattern of prediction, which has previously been found in North American Christian samples, generalizes cross-culturally.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cross-Cultural PsychologySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207