Адаптация методики «Religious Emphasis Scale» / шкала религиозного Акцентирования
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of the testing of the “Religious Emphasis Scale” methodology are being published in this article. This technique of the Canadian psychologist Bob Altemeyer measures the extent to which parents placed emphasis on religion while bringing up their children and how the children’s position on this issue coincides with the position of the parents. During the work on the survey, we also included the author’s questionnaire of Irina Markovskaya “Interaction parent child” (a variant for teenagers and their parents) which deals with relations within the family. In order to determine the level of religiosity, we included the author’s standard questionnaire, which was used by the author in several sociological and social and psychological researches, into the questionnaire. This study involved in total 359 people. The results of testing of the questionnaire “The Religious Emphasis Scale” allow considering it as reliable and valid diagnostic tool; it fully meets the modern requirements of psychodiagnostics. The use of the questionnaire will be the most optimal while conducting surveys among the respondents with high level of religiosity. At that, the questionnaire is universal and effective for work with all and any religious organisations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".