MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963176181 · doi:10.1111/socf.12520

A Social Fields Theory of Pilgrimage: African American Christians in Israel and Palestine

2019· article· en· W2963176181 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociological Forum · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaYale University
KeywordsPilgrimageNegotiationSociologyLand of IsraelPoliticsFundamentalismPraxisJudaismGender studiesSocial sciencePolitical scienceHistoryLawAncient historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is pilgrimage and how should we understand its social significance? Traditional analyses of religiously motivated travel have focused on praxis and ritual. Contemporary analyses have further analyzed pilgrimage as a site where religion, politics, economy, and cultural production converge. This article argues that such convergence is best understood as the product of overlapping and interacting social fields and that particular pilgrimages—as sites of contestation and negotiation—take shape in the interstitial spaces between fields. Using the case of African American Christian pilgrimage to Israel and Palestine as the “Holy Land,” this article examines the relationship between overlapping fields and the negotiation of competing interests on pilgrimage. It suggests cultural framing work as a mechanism by which actors manage tensions between these fields and their interests.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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