Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is it possible to reconcile the spectacular approach of the media with the inner nature of the spiritual? Can one imagine the presence of religions within an ambience of entertainment? There always were tensions between religions and plays and games. Religions feared theatre, play, music, arts, dance, cards, and media, of course. Why are play and entertainment considered to be so dangerous? Would it be a better approach to discern true spiritual openings through play, and through media entertainment? In this chapter, the authors discuss the point of views of an historian, a film director, communication researchers, a philosopher, sociologists, and anthropologists, who offer a refined understanding of the capacity of playing to reveal the human search for meaning and spiritual journey. Play, and certainly media entertainment, can open humans to their own various potentialities, giving significance to their relation with the world and with other humans, and so with the sacredness. However, this can be done only if one respects the typical languages of the media made out of narratives and storytelling, which implies capacity of creativity in arts and rhetoric, combined with respect for ethical and spiritual dimensions of believers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".