Bibliographic record
Abstract
The religious dimensions of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) have long caused tensions for the non-religious involved in the fellowship. In response to these challenges, an increasing number of secular meeting groups have begun emerging, offering non-religious approaches to AA's Twelve Step model of recovery. Drawing on qualitative interview and observational data with members of secular groups located in Toronto, Canada, this article explores how non-religion manifests as meaningful difference in the lives of the non-religious navigating AA. As religion is encountered, participants describe how their non-religious identities became problematized, characterized as active impediments to recovery, and how non-religion is often experienced as a source of struggle and conflict. Despite such challenges, as the non-religious persist in active engagement with AA they participate in new labours of nonreligion, producing new agential spaces and new interpretations and expressions of AA's Twelve Step model of recovery. In recognizing non-religion as meaningful difference and attending to the ways it manifests and operates within AA, this article argues that attention to non-religion in AA provides new opportunities for both research into the substantial features of non-religion and integrative paths for the non-religious in AA and Twelve Step fellowships more broadly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".