MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908118494 · doi:10.1111/1467-9655.13000

On secularity: Marxism, reality, and the Messiah in Brazil

2018· article· en· W2908118494 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Lebner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Royal Anthropological Institute · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecularitySecularismSecularizationScholarshipPoliticsEthnographySociologyMessiahReligious studiesGender studiesAestheticsPolitical sciencePhilosophyLawAnthropologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract On 17 April 1996, police opened fire on more than 1,500 unarmed protesters of the Landless Workers’ Movement (MST) in Southeast Pará, Brazil, killing nineteen and wounding seventy‐nine. Two years later, Osias, one of the wounded survivors, awoke to find that he had written a messianic prophecy, which he decided to share because it contained ‘a lot of reality’. This article explores what conditioned Osias's expectation that his text could provoke public reflections on reality. As such, it engages with a question unexplored by current scholarship: why the will to publicity might be inextricable from secularity, which I define as the condition of living with secularization, understood in turn not as the rise of unbelief, but as the expansion of a domain of thought and practice distinguished from religion. The ethnography ultimately inspires a rereading of Asad's Formations of the secular , interrogates assumptions about the determining reality of ‘secularism’ and ‘politics’, and makes more visible how anthropological writing is shaped by secularity. With a postscript on the October 2018 presidential elections.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.034
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.006
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Royal Anthropological InstituteSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207