MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195944846 · doi:10.3917/anso.212.0337

Is France exceptionally irreligious? A comparative test of the cohort replacement theory

2021· article· fr· W3195944846 on OpenAlexaff
Jörg Stolz, Ferruccio Biolcati, Francesco Molteni

Bibliographic record

VenueL Année sociologique · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si les chercheurs ont souvent souligné le fait que la France est peut-être un pays exceptionnellement irréligieux, cette hypothèse n’a pas encore été testée avec des données longitudinales ; et les chercheurs n’ont pas non plus tenté d’expliquer cette prétendue irréligiosité. Le présent article tente de combler cette lacune de la littérature en comparant la France à d’autres pays catholiques d’Europe occidentale. Pour ce faire, nous utilisons l’ensemble de données européennes qui est, à ce jour, le plus complet sur l’appartenance et la fréquentation des églises dans les pays européens (CARPE), ainsi que les données du Programme international d’enquête sociale (ISSP) qui permettent de mesurer les croyances religieuses rétrospectivement, dès les années 1910. La France affiche une religiosité globale significativement plus faible que les autres pays catholiques d’Europe occidentale, bien que cet écart ait diminué au cours des dernières décennies (et ce faible niveau de religiosité ne peut s’expliquer par des effets de période, spécifiques à la France, opérant au cours des quarante dernières années). La sécularisation en France prend plutôt la forme d’un remplacement de cohortes, ce qui a conduit à la reproduction des différences de religiosité entre les pays d’une génération à l’autre. En d’autres termes, si la France est plus irréligieuse c’est qu’elle a pris la voie de la transition séculière plus tôt que les autres pays, ou en partant d’un niveau plus bas.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Année sociologiqueSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207