MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021040003 · doi:10.1558/rsth.40944

Humanities and Religious Studies

2020· article· en· W3021040003 on OpenAlexaff
David W. Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies and Theology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceCentralityHumanitiesSociologyPosition (finance)EpistemologyPhilosophySocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is particular angst expressed today about the future of the Humanities, although this concern has been with us for a long time. Many are concerned that the Humanities are dying and no longer occupy a position of importance in our universities. While there is every reason to be concerned, there has never been a time when the Humanities are more important. The Humanities must no longer accept a position at the periphery of universities and must, instead, assert their centrality. Religious Studies, as a relatively new Humanities discipline, offers a path forward. It suggests an openness that serves as a paradigm for the Humanities with regard to how to look outside themselves for new ways of doing research and teaching their students.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligious Studies and TheologySame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207