MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982427624 · doi:10.1177/0008429819844496

Saisir le « nouveau pluralisme religieux » : l’approche de Peter L. Berger

2019· article· fr· W2982427624 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Isaac Nizigama

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peter L. Berger caractérise le pluralisme religieux moderne comme un « nouveau pluralisme religieux ». Celui-ci, typiquement moderne, se distingue des pluralismes prémodernes notamment par le processus appelé la « contamination cognitive » résultant d’une dialectique, également typiquement moderne, entre, d’une part, la pluralisation des groupes et des contenus religieux, et, de l’autre, l’incertitude et l’itinérance psychologico-spirituelle. Cet article entend analyser, de manière systématique, la conception de ce « nouveau pluralisme religieux » selon Peter L. Berger (1929–2017) à travers ses textes les plus connus publiés de 1960 à 2011. En commençant par la définition de ce concept en comparaison avec celle des concepts de « pluralité » et de « pluralisation », et en opposition avec les formes prémodernes de ce phénomène, nous identifions et analysons quatre traits principaux de ce dernier et montrons la manière dont l’œuvre sociologique et théologique de Berger, lue à travers ces textes, est unifiée par sa théorie du pluralisme religieux moderne. Enfin, nous présentons, à tire indicatif pour le débat académique, des idées pertinentes de quelques auteurs qui ont critiqué ou soutenu les thèses développées par Peter L. Berger sur le pluralisme religieux moderne.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.328 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207