MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095170495 · doi:10.1525/nr.2020.24.2.118

Review: Religions in Contemporary Africa: An Introduction, by Laura S. Grillo, Adriaan van Klinken and Hassan J. Ndzovu

2020· article· en· W3095170495 on OpenAlex
Nathan I. Elawa

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Religio The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIconCitationDownloadHistoryLibrary scienceArt historyArtMedia studiesSociologyComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| October 20 2020 Review: Religions in Contemporary Africa: An Introduction, by Laura S. Grillo, Adriaan van Klinken and Hassan J. Ndzovu Religions in Contemporary Africa: An Introduction. By Laura S. Grillo, Adriaan van Klinken and Hassan J. Ndzovu. Routledge, 2019. 244 pages. $155.00 cloth; $42.95 paper; ebook available. Nathan I. Elawa Nathan I. Elawa Vancouver School of Theology Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nova Religio (2020) 24 (2): 118–119. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2020.24.2.118 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 Nathan I. Elawa; Review: Religions in Contemporary Africa: An Introduction, by Laura S. Grillo, Adriaan van Klinken and Hassan J. Ndzovu. Nova Religio 20 October 2020; 24 (2): 118–119. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2020.24.2.118 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.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.256 · 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