MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966250417 · doi:10.4324/9781315688046-19

The Desjardins diet for World Religions Paradigm loss

2016· article· en· W2966250417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michel Desjardins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint (geometry)SociologyAnalogyPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the years I have thought long and hard about ways to structure courses that increase student learning in general and an appreciation for the academic study of religion in particular. My food and religion course best reflects that thinking, and the positive impact that course has had on students encourages me to present it to a wider audience. This chapter presents a Canadian university course that serves as a thematicintroduction to ‘world religions’ while at the same time deconstructing some established notions of religion. The focus is on pedagogy. The ‘diet’ I am prescribing is intended for teachers and their students. The analogy is both fitting and cautionary. The vast majority of food diets fail, except by making some of their creators wealthy. Long-term, sustainable health improvement comes about when a person recognizes that change is required, and when the recommended changes are gradual, multi-faceted and consistent with a person’s physical and emotional makeup. A key point I make below about course construction and delivery is that students are more apt to reconsider their understanding of religion if those changes help them make better sense of the world. The pedagogical challenge is to help students recognize the complexity of what is typically understood as religion.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207