Review: West Africa’s Women of God: Alinesitoué and the Diola Prophetic Tradition by Robert M. Baum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| November 01 2017 Review: West Africa's Women of God: Alinesitoué and the Diola Prophetic Tradition by Robert M. Baum West Africa's Women of God: Alinesitoué and the Diola Prophetic Tradition. By Robert M. Baum. Indiana University Press, 2016. x + 301 pages. $80.00 cloth; $32.00 paper; ebook available. Martin A. Klein Martin A. Klein University of Toronto Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nova Religio (2017) 21 (2): 130–131. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2017.21.2.130 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Martin A. Klein; Review: West Africa's Women of God: Alinesitoué and the Diola Prophetic Tradition by Robert M. Baum. Nova Religio 1 November 2017; 21 (2): 130–131. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2017.21.2.130 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentNova Religio Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2017 by The Regents of the University of California2017 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.007 |
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".