MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977808398

Religious reconstruction in the South Asian diasporas : from one generation to another

2007· book· en· W2977808398 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John R. Hinnells

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiasporaMulticulturalismReligious studiesGender studiesPoliticsEthnic groupPolitical scienceEthnologySociologyHistoryAnthropologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notes on Contributers Introduction J.R.Hinnells PART ONE: RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL ISSUES A Reassessment of Identity Strategies Amongst British South Asian Muslims R.Geaves British Muslims and the Search for Religious Guidance P.Lewis The Contribution of Nurture in a Sampradaya to Young British Hindus Understanding of their Tradition E. Nesbitt Celibacy and Salvation in the Swaminarayan Movement R.Barot Death and Bereavement in South Asian Diaspora Communities S.Firth Parsi Zoroastrian Experiences in Four 'Western' Countries: A Comparative Study J.R.Hinnells PART TWO: RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ISSUES Religion and Ethnicity in America R.B.Williams Public Policy Implications of Canada's Multiculturalism for Religious Pluralism H.Coward Cultural Diversity, Religious Plurality and Government Policy in Australia G.D.Bouma Religion in the Educational System of England and Wales: Law, Policy and Representation R.Jackson PART THREE: SOUTH ASIAN DIASPORA RELIGIONS POST- 9/11 and 7/7 South Asians in America Post 9/11 R.B.Williams Law, Religion and South Asians in Diaspora W.Menski Living with Difference: A Forgotten Art in Urgent Need of Revival? R.Ballard Index

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207