MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612254122 · doi:10.1177/0008429817695662

Religious–Secular Polarization Compared

2017· article· en· W2612254122 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sarah Wilkins‐Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityModernityPolarization (electrochemistry)SociologyGeneral Social SurveySecular educationConceptual frameworkSecular variationSocial scienceGeographyReligious studiesDemographyPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many decades now, there has been a general decline of traditional indicators of religiosity in both Quebec and British Columbia. New generations are being born and raised in much more secular social contexts than in years past. However, this general trend of decline masks many differences between the two Canadian provinces, and does not imply a complete disappearance of religion from society. Certain groups of believers have been able to maintain their numbers and levels of practice. Since the 2000s, these two worlds of the secular and the religious seem to have been confronting one another more and more, evident in public debates and individual representations. The emerging framework of religious polarization offers conceptual tools to better grasp this dynamic in advanced Modernity. By analyzing recent statistical data on individual religious practices, we examine the extent to which this cleavage between the religious and non-religious is developing among younger generations in two distinct religious and social contexts: those of Quebec and British Columbia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.340 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207