MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091979687 · doi:10.35632/ajis.v31i3.1063

Discipline, Devotion, and Dissent

2014· article· en· W3091979687 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aruba Mahmud

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Islam and Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissentFaithOpposition (politics)IslamRadicalizationPolitical scienceAnecdoteLawJudaismSociologyGovernment (linguistics)Media studiesTheologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 2007 provincial election campaign, Conservative party candidateJohn Tory proposed extending government funding to all faith-based schoolsin Ontario. This was met with strong public and media opposition due to fearsof radicalization and indoctrinating students in religious beliefs considered outdatedand a threat to Canadian norms (particularly with Islamic schools). It iswith this anecdote that editors Graham P. McDonough, Nadeem Memon, andAvi L. Mintz introduce Discipline, Devotion, and Dissent: Jewish, Catholic,and Islamic Schooling in Canada. As they note, the impassioned debate surroundingTory’s election promise, as well as his ensuing loss, indicate that religiouseducation is a particularly contentious topic in an increasingly secularsociety. And yet there is surprisingly little scholarly literature on this topic.The editors seek to address this gap through this excellent and muchneeded contribution to the field. Focusing solely on Catholic, Islamic, and Jewishschools, which make up the vast majority of Canada’s full-time religiousschools, the editors seek not to provide an overview of religious education, butto address three issues: The schools’ aims and practices, how they “negotiatethe tension between the demands of the faith and the expectation that they educateCanadian citizens,” and how they “respond to internal dissent.” ...

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Islam and SocietySame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207