Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing future researchers who may undertake research on Scientology, this commentary offers a number of cautions related to issues that they likely will encounter. Most of these issues stem from the organization’s anti-democratic, authoritarian nature and resultant policies, which include attempts to curtail any and all activities and research that its leaders conclude are out of alignment with members’ obligation to ‘keep Scientology working.’ Ethically and morally questionable activities within the cult (which is a term that I define) include its own judicial and penal systems, its systematic harassment of perceived critics, its data storage and protection issues, and its extensive but highly questionable manipulation of members – any study of which likely will elicit censoring reactions from leadership. So too will studies about probable membership shrinkage; its sizable body of financial constituents; and its lobbying efforts and network of lawyers, supportive academics, and expert witnesses. Although I encourage newer scholars to undertake Scientology studies, I urge them to prepare for interference attempts that almost certainly will come.
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 | 0.023 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".