Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Réunion Island, the Charismatic Renewal was introduced in 1974 by the Mauritian nun Marie-Lise Corson. It quickly became extremely successful against the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal movement which had established itself on the island eight years earlier. And just like this other movement, it drew heavily on the “Creole religious system” in order to foster a seemingly reverse process of “eradicating” popular religiosity. It redefined the traditional system without discrediting it. Beginning with the 1980s-1990s, growing religious globalization encouraged new communities originally set up in mainland France or Quebec to come to the island. The life of these outside groups intersected with that of the local assemblies and leaders, winning them over. This second period further corresponded to a normalization of the Renewal which brought its practices back into the Catholic fold. A third phase started in the late 1990s and early 2000s with the creation of groups on the fringes of the diocesan Renewal that tended to re-emphasize the attributes of Creole identity and move closer to the neo-Pentecostal movement. Thus, the study of the birth and development of the Charismatic Renewal in the French Indian Ocean département brings to light three waves. Drawing on ethnological research, this paper will analyse them by looking at the ways in which this transnational and transdenominational movement has interacted with local religious and cultural practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".