MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005841105 · doi:10.1093/ahr/rhz650

Terence Keel. Divine Variations: How Christian Thought Became Racial Science.

2019· article· en· W3005841105 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce J. Baum

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Historical Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKeelPhilosophyReligious studiesHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely appreciated that current struggles over race and racism are crucially shaped by the history of racism. In his book Divine Variations: How Christian Thought Became Racial Science, Terence Keel masterfully demonstrates how this is true not only with respect to the legacy of historical racism on ongoing racialized inequality; it is also manifest in how modern scientific approaches to race have been informed by religious conceptions that scientists have often understood themselves to be leaving behind. Keel is by no means the first scholar to demonstrate how modern racial science has been informed by Christian religious conceptions of distinct branches of humanity. But he adds considerable depth and specificity to our understanding of how modern ideas about distinct human races involve what he calls the “modern scientific appropriation of Christian supersessionism” (10). Through examinations of well-chosen race scientists and historical moments, Keel illuminates “Christian thinking about a creator God, Judaism, nature, time, and human ancestry that influenced scientific ideas about race” (7).

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.223 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe American Historical ReviewSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207