MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204450911 · doi:10.1177/00084298211035999

CSSR: Historical Reflections

2021· article· en· W3204450911 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paul L. Gareau

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicStudy and Philosophy of Religion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAusterityReflexivitySociologyPoliticsRepresentation (politics)Political scienceEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the 50 th anniversary celebration of the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion (CCSR), this article provides a reflection on the past, present, and future of the Canadian Society for the Study of Religion (CSSR). CSSR members were given the space to outline their thoughts and experiences of over 50 years of Religious Studies in Canada. This collaborative article tracks the development of the discipline through the 1970s from theology to comparative religion, to the transformation of the 1980 -90s with an interdisciplinary and critical engagement, to the new millennium infusion of socio-political research, critical self-reflexivity, and lived religion work. We also focus on the role of the CSSR in shaping and promoting Religious Studies in Canada through its various academic activities as well as observing the fragmentation and decline of Religious Studies programs in Canadian universities. And finally, we look to the future questioning how the CSSR and Religious Studies can remain relevant against a backdrop of institutional changes due to funding austerity and the COVID global pandemic to supporting Religious Studies inside and outside of academia. This article is not intended as a detailed history of the CSSR, but an opportunity to see a representation of our experiences and hopes for Religious Studies in Canada.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.313
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicStudy and Philosophy of ReligionFrench-language works237,207