Assessing the Validity of Data Synthesis Methods to Estimate Religious Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present study tests the validity of a data synthesis approach to population estimates of religiously defined groups. This is particularly important in places like the United States, where there is no definitive source of official data on its population's religious composition, and researchers must rely on costly, large‐scale surveys, or congregational membership studies. Each approach has limitations, especially for estimation of small religious groups and for estimation within small geographic areas. Without official statistics, the degree of bias in estimates is unknown. Data synthesis, specifically Bayesian multilevel estimation with poststratification, offers a useful alternative that maximizes the utility of data across all sources to estimate multiple groups from the same sources of data. This method also facilitates comparison of groups. This study provides evidence of the validity of the approach by synthesizing data from Canada, a country that includes questions about religious identification in its national census.
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 | 0.827 | 0.938 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".