MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997303297 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.2018-0001

Sky vs. Earthly Empowerment: From Angels and Superheroes to Humans and Community in the Marvel Universe and Green Christian Cosmology

2019· article· en· W2997303297 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria Nita

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFantasyNarrativeParanormalAestheticsSkyIdentity (music)SociologyLiteraturePhilosophyArtAstrophysicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article examines “sky saviour” themes in a number of sources in the Western cultural domain, from biblical texts to contemporary paranormal fantasy, in contrast with some countercultural and ecocritical reformulations that are earth-centred. I postulate “narratives of empowerment” as representations of humans’ relationships with remembered and imagined landscapes which aim to construct new identities. I apply biosemiotic and relational theoretical approaches to inquire into the evolving nature of these representations, and what they might say about our changing human identity, from “oppressed” humans ascending to the sky to “oppressors” of the earth. Furthermore, I discuss how empowered identities are constructed through sublimated sexualities, as a means of experiencing the sky. In contrast, I show that earth-centred narratives of empowerment in Green Christian contexts reflect a transformed cosmology, with community and creativity leading to salvation. This earth-centred model is also present in popular fiction, as evidenced in my discussion of the new Marvel heroes, suggesting a democratization of the sacred and the paranormal.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.052
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0000.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207