MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024382773 · doi:10.1525/nr.2020.23.4.139

Review: <i>African Sacred Spaces: Culture, History, and Change</i>, edited by ’BioDun J. Ogundayo and Julius O. Adekunle

2020· article· en· W3024382773 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh Hodges

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Religio The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Maritime and Colonial Histories
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtAnthropologyPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| April 15 2020 Review: African Sacred Spaces: Culture, History, and Change, edited by 'BioDun J. Ogundayo and Julius O. Adekunle African Sacred Spaces: Culture, History, and Change. Edited by 'BioDun J. Ogundayo and Julius O. Adekunle. Lexington Books, 2019. 268 pages. $95.00 cloth; ebook available. Hugh Hodges Hugh Hodges Trent University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nova Religio (2020) 23 (4): 139–140. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2020.23.4.139 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Hugh Hodges; Review: African Sacred Spaces: Culture, History, and Change, edited by 'BioDun J. Ogundayo and Julius O. Adekunle. Nova Religio 15 April 2020; 23 (4): 139–140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2020.23.4.139 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentNova Religio Search This content is only available via PDF. © 2020 by The Regents of the University of California2020 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

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)0.020
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.023

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNova Religio The Journal of Alternative and Emergent ReligionsSame topicGlobal Maritime and Colonial HistoriesFrench-language works237,207