MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176150624 · doi:10.1177/00377686211020567

Black and white or shades of grey: Religious approaches and Muslim marital conflict

2021· article· en· W3176150624 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Compass · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReligiosityIslamSociologyHumanitiesEthnologyNationalityReligious diversityPolitical sciencePhilosophyTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the diversity of diasporic Muslim public experiences has been examined, the social contours of religious approach have received less attention. Moreover, the ways in which religion shapes marital relations remains understudied. This article, which features data from a larger research project, highlights two divergent trends in Muslim approaches to religion: exclusivity, which frames only one approach to Islam as correct, and inclusivity, which frames multiple approaches as correct. This divergence plays a role in shaping definitions of 'good Muslim', as exclusivist Muslims focus on ritual acts (outward observance), while inclusivist Muslims prioritize good manners (inward observance). The author demonstrates how these inward and outward definitions of Muslimness in turn inform how participants evaluate their spouses' religiosity and, thus, the potential for conflict over religiosity with their spouses.

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)0.000
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.247 · 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