MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995739176 · doi:10.1177/0008429819854353

Who is Not Afraid of Richard Dawkins? Using Google Trends to Assess the Reach of Influential Atheists across Canadian Secular Groups

2019· article· en· W2995739176 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Maryam Dilmaghani

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProxy (statistics)SpiritualitySet (abstract data type)PsychologyReligious studiesSociologySocial psychologyDemographyStatisticsMathematicsComputer sciencePhilosophyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Google Trends data on search volumes of high profile atheist public figures are used to assess their relative reach among different types of seculars in Canada. The user query data mined from Google Trends are complemented with an extensive set of information extracted from the Canadian General Social Surveys of 2005 to 2016. The analysis shows that the reach of high profile atheists is positively correlated with the presence of strictly-seculars, a proxy for the atheists. The investigation produces no statistically significant correlation between the presence of other types of seculars, namely the unchurched believers and the nominal affiliates, and the search volumes for high profile atheists. This exploratory finding suggests that the influential atheists likely “preach to the choir,” catering to like-minded individuals, at the exclusion of those with relatively close but differing views on religion and spirituality.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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