MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976790154 · doi:10.5539/res.v11n4p33

The Individualist Power and Adaptive New Religious Movement: Scientology Individual as an Ethical Subject

2019· article· en· W2976790154 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ofer Parchev

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormativeIndividualismConstitutionSubject (documents)SociologyPower (physics)Transcendental numberEpistemologyLawEnvironmental ethicsPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New religion movements are one of the most interesting social phenomena in recent decades. As an alternative communal and individualist way of life, these movements offer a transcendental, non-secular way of life that challenges the values of liberal society while remaining within its legal and normative boundaries. In the course of this paper, and by using an analytical description of Foucault’s assumptions, I will examine the discursive and practical operation of the Scientology Church as a new religion movement that transcends the individual subject. I will describe the themes of Scientology as pastoral techniques, and its neo-liberal subjective constitution as a part of the conservative, normative mechanism of modern Western society, while arguing that they pose, at the same time, a potential ethical alternative that subverts the epistemological boundaries of Western liberal society.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.033
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207