MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579062867 · doi:10.21724/rever.v16i3.31186

Exploring Soto Zen in Peru

2016· article· en· W2579062867 on OpenAlexaff
Germán McKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueREVER - Revista de Estudos da Religião · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhenomenonQualitative researchPosition (finance)SociologyProcess (computing)Qualitative analysisParticipant observationEpistemologySocial sciencePhilosophyBusinessComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soto Zen has grown in importance in Peru since 2005, a phenomenon that has not yet been well studied. To analyze such a process, this research uses the “processive modes” theory as developed by M. Baumann and the Rational Choice Theory as applied to religion by R. Stark and R. Finke. It draws upon qualitative data collected through semi-structured interviews and written questionnaires conducted in two stages, the first one between 2007 and 2009, and the second one in 2013, as well as through participant observation. This study concludes that after deploying important organizational, institutional, communicational and financial resources, today’s Soto Zen presence in Peru can be characterized by the drive to adapt its tradition to Peruvians on the one hand, and maintaining a connection to its roots on the other. As a consequence of these two realities, the Soto Zen community is facing tensions between ordained leadership and lay members. These may jeopardize the strategic position the community has within the Peruvian religious marketplace.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREVER - Revista de Estudos da ReligiãoSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207