MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2382206364 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.27.3.2388

Thou Shalt Kill … Carefully: Secular Religion, the Immanent Frame, and Showtime's<i>Dexter</i>

2015· article· en· W2382206364 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew Pittman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime, Deviance, and Social Control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThouSociologyFrame (networking)Frame analysisSociocultural evolutionEpistemologyRappaportAestheticsPhilosophyReligious studiesAnthropologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses the television series Dexter as a space to explore the practice of religion in a secular society. Employing critical discourse analysis, which focuses on the causal relationships between discursive practices or texts and sociocultural processes, we situate the habitual killing activity of protagonist Dexter Morgan in what Charles Taylor calls the “immanent frame.” By using the concepts of ritual provided by anthropologists Roy A. Rappaport and Victor Turner, Dexter demonstrates how individuals in a secular society can create a belief system without appealing to traditional transcendent beings or ideals. We conclude with implications for modern religious practice.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicCrime, Deviance, and Social ControlFrench-language works237,207