Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years “religious literacy” advocacy has gained a significant following, both academic and non-academic. Furthermore, it is widely accepted that attainment of religious literacy (and the reduction of religious il literacy – ignorance about religions, either explicitly or by implication) will bring social benefits or cure societal ills. Yet, the term “religious literacy” itself remains poorly defined; neither have the benefits touted by advocates of “religious literacy” been subjected to empirical testing. Instead, reasons for the ready adoption of the term can be found in its particular genealogy, and in its relation to advocacies for other “literacies”. Moreover, especially the advocacy of basic literacy (i.e., of literacy, literally speaking) is historically entangled with Christian theologies and other ideologies, a history giving rise to what Harvey Graff once called the “literacy myth” linking increased literacy to social improvements or progress. Thus, finally, the particular resonance of “religious literacy” in Religious Studies and related academic circles may reflect the inescapable historical character of our particular academic enterprise as “ex-theological.”
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".