MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469530004 · doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfw060

<i>Miraculous Images and Votive Offerings in Mexico</i>. By Frank Graziano.

2016· article· en· W2469530004 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin Norget

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Religion · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionPoetryFaithNarrativeArtLiteratureHumanitiesAestheticsHistoryPhilosophyPsychologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a compelling and lovely book on many levels. Frank Graziano is known for his previous works on Catholic saints and saintly devotions in Latin America. This work, however, is more concentrated and dense in both content and in geographic scope; it is unusual in that it is focused exclusively on Mexico, and in particular, on southern and west-central states of Mexico (Señor de Chalma, la Virgen de los Remedios), Jalisco (Niño de Cacahuatito), and Oaxaca (Señor del Ray, Virgin of Juquila). Nevertheless, in the course of his research, Graziano visited many more sites (listed in an appendix) both in Mexico and Spain, and the richness of his knowledge from this broader experience comes across clearly in the text. The book is a holistic and fairly exhaustive study of the dynamics of devotion to saints, in all its material, sensory, affective, and practical dimensions. The book is divided into six main sections, each focused on a particular saint or an aspect of local devotion to a miraculous image. Graziano has chosen to present the material in two voices that alternate from chapter to chapter: one, a narrative voice that describes the scene he encountered at each shrine, which evokes vividly the experiential qualities of people’s faith and passion for the saints as related to the ins and outs of everyday life; the other voice is that of the academic analyst/interpreter, who dissects various aspects of this devotion—“projective animation,” “absorption,” “poetic faith,” “simulacra,” and so on—in more conventional, explanatory, scholarly language.

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)0.000
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 score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of ReligionSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207