MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124872306 · doi:10.5539/ells.v6n4p7

Belief & Reliance: Mythic Ground for an Honor-Dignity Binary

2016· article· en· W3124872306 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
C. S. Herrman

Bibliographic record

VenueEnglish Language and Literature Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonorDignityConformityEpistemologyNormativeMythologySociologyMetaphysicsSocial psychologyLawPhilosophyPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A structuralist definition might well treat of religion in this way: A system of myth incorporating explanations of reality that grounds normative metaphysical outlooks as well as affirming conduct in conformity with social integrity, and which is maintained as authoritative both because of and by means of sacrality. This paper argues that myth directs the social weltanschauung with a stress variously upon honor and dignity. These two terms thus form a parent analytical binary supporting subsidiary cognate pairs termed “dimensions” that describe the means by which social institutions apply mythic content toward (on behalf of) honor or dignity.It argues further that certain social structures express mythic-derived norms from biosocial substrates manifesting via drift potentials that in turn express as dimensional sub-traits of honor or dignity. This is what we refer to as a “belief-reliance system”. Belief in myth generates reliance in/upon the institutions translating myth into norms.A sufficient understanding of these elements should enable a vastly improved understanding of local and international culture. The paper is divided between an explanation of core concepts and conclusions, the latter including applications of the concepts in the description of culture, as well as the use of the concepts to engage cultures in conflict resolution.

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)0.000
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.340 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnglish Language and Literature StudiesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207