What is Religious Misconduct: A Typological Analysis of the Crimes Motivated by Polytheistic Religion, Using the Chinese Folk Religion as an Example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In terms of political function, religion is usually defined by criminologists/sociologists as an institution of social control. While religion can assist state managers to maintain the status quo and to safeguard social order, religion, under certain circumstances, can become an antisocial force as well. In this paper, the criminogenic side of religions will be examined. By using the Chinese folk religion as an example, this paper will demonstrate that polytheistic religions can become unstable social organizations. Four topics will be addressed in this paper. First, the research paradigms that can help crime researchers examine the subject of religious misconduct will be summarized. Then the features shared by polytheistic religions will be proposed. The third part will look at the primary traits of Chinese folk religion. Finally, by using the Chinese folk religion as an instance, the diverse contexts under which polytheistic religions can breed deviant/criminal behaviors will be analyzed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".