MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770985196 · doi:10.21810/strm.v7i1.119

Paradigms of the Religious Network Society

2015· article· en· W2770985196 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Adam Bajan

Bibliographic record

VenueStream Interdisciplinary Journal of Communication · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia, Religion, Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNetwork societyWorshipChristianitySociologyInformation societyReligious organizationContemporary societySpiritualityMedia studiesReligious studiesLawPolitical scienceSocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning in the early 1970’s with the invention of the microprocessor, mass use of information technologies worldwide coincided with the appearance of a nodally-linked network of digital interconnectivity, or ‘network society’ (Castells, 1996). The network society’s exponential growth correlates with a rise in use of digital networking media by various sects and denominations of the Christian religion. Today, growing numbers of Christian organizations integrate digital media into both their approach to worship and the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures. This paper argues that the use of digital media by these organizations is indicative of the creation of a “religious network society” exhibiting identical structural paradigms to Castells’ (1996) network society. By virtue of the media deployed within it, the ‘religious network society’ fosters a mass culture of digital participation characterized by a rapid fragmentation of religious messaging and an over-sharing of personal religious beliefs. However, the religious network society also erodes Christianity’s hierarchical structures of authority (Turner, 2007). It is argued that these structures are being replaced with a banal form of religion emphasizing spirituality and individual self-expression at the expense of tradition (Campbell, 2012; Hjarvard, 2013). Moreover, purpose alterations to Christianity’s authority structures and approach to worship are indicative of a much larger shift in the religion, in which rising digital media use may in fact imply a decline in Christianity’s societal influence.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.025
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStream Interdisciplinary Journal of CommunicationSame topicMedia, Religion, Digital CommunicationFrench-language works237,207