MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990624994 · doi:10.29173/axismundi77

Sister Insider/Outsider

2017· article· en· W2990624994 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAxis Mundi · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipInsiderObjectivity (philosophy)SociologyEpistemologyIdeal (ethics)Subject (documents)Subject matterPhilosophyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 
 
 Religious studies as an academic pursuit is heir to the ideal of objectivity traditionally pursued in the social sciences. Consequently, some scholars dismiss theology from religious studies on the grounds that it is not appropriately distant from its subject matter. On the basis of this distinction the vast array of theological material available to religious studies scholars has been discounted as unusable, despite providing much needed insight into religious beliefs and behaviors. In this paper, I argue that theological material as a whole should not be discounted as a source of religious studies scholarship and critique and conclude that it is necessary to reconsider the place of theological texts within religious studies discourse. This reconsideration is necessary because critical theologies can use methods and include analysis that conform to the critical academic standards of religious studies.
 
 

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.294 · 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