MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591115547 · doi:10.1525/nr.2017.20.3.57

Survival Strategies of New Religions in a Secular Consumer Society

2017· article· en· W2591115547 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ringo Ringvee

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Religio The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governancePopulationReligious organizationSociologyQuarter (Canadian coin)Consumer societyContemporary societySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawEconomicsManagementHistoryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I argue that in contemporary neoliberal consumer societies, traditional religious missionizing activity is superseded by religious branding and marketing. An example of this at a national level is Estonia, a small secular society in Europe where the majority of the population defines itself as religiously unaffiliated. Over the last quarter-century, Estonia has been characterized by neoliberal reforms and governance and has seen the creation of a religious or spiritual marketplace. I examine three strategies for survival in this marketplace by using three examples: a native Neopagan association with legal status as a religious association; a Kriya Yoga community with legal entity status as a non-profit association; and a Neo-Tantric organization with legal entity status as a regular business enterprise. I show that despite the differences in their approaches, each case shows how branding and marketing are increasingly important for new religious groups seeking to establish a successful presence in contemporary neoliberal consumer society.

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)0.001
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 score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNova Religio The Journal of Alternative and Emergent ReligionsSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207