Bibliographic record
Abstract
Umbanda is a dynamic and varied Brazilian spirit-incorporation tradition first recorded in the early twentieth century. This article problematizes the ambiguity of categorizing Umbanda as an ‘Afro-Brazilian’ religion, given the acknowledged centrality of elements of Kardecist Spiritism. It makes a case that Umbanda is best categorized as a hybridizing Brazilian Spiritism. Though most Umbandists belong to groups with strong African influences alongside Kardecist elements, many belong to groups with few or no African elements, reflecting greater Kardecist influence. Kardecist elements are universal in Umbanda; Africana elements are not. Kardecism is a western esoteric tradition and a key factor in the emergence of a wide variety of Latin American Spiritisms, including Umbanda. Labelling Umbanda as ‘Afro-Brazilian’ fails to acknowledge the beliefs and practices of the many Brazilians who practice other forms of the tradition. This case study of the categorization of religions – looking at scholarly ideology, race, historical origins, doctrine and practice – emphasizes the need to look at specific contexts and to avoid broad generalizations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".