MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885160885 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.2017-0010

Karaoke, <i>Imitatio Prominentis</i>, and <i>Imitatio Dei</i>

2018· article· en· W2885160885 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Roman Meinhold

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Culture and Media Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivinityImitationPhenomenonRelation (database)SociologyAnthropologyAestheticsEpistemologyPhilosophyTheologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article investigates the relation between the religious concept imitatio dei and the popular cultural phenomenon, karaoke, which is extremely popular all around the world but, in particular, in Asia. Imitatio dei, the imitation of divinity, can be linked to karaoke by tracing both phenomena back to a philosophic-anthropological feature: imitatio prominentis, the imitation of outstanding persons. According to research findings in comparative religion, imitatio dei, the imitation of god(s) in cultic-religious contexts, is found in several religious rituals in diverse cultures—for example, in transition rituals such as birth, initiation, marriage, and funeral rituals. It can be inferred that imitatio dei is a sub-phenomenon of imitatio prominentis, the imitation of outstanding beings or persons. It can be shown that imitatio prominentis is a philosophic-anthropological datum or a part of human nature. Karaoke must be rendered as a popular cultural manifestation of imitatio prominentis. The investigation takes a transdisciplinary-synthetic approach interweaving research findings from cultural critique, cultural studies, art theory, philosophical anthropology, and comparative religious studies.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicAsian Culture and Media StudiesFrench-language works237,207