Book Reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connie Neal, The Gospel According to Harry Potter. Spirituality in the Stories of the World’s Most Famous Seeker, reviewed by Anita Helmbold Rodney Clapp, Border Crossings: Christian Trespasses on Popular Culture and Public Affairs, reviewed by Jennifer Rycenga William Romanowski, Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture, reviewed by Gordon Alley-Young Daniel Sack, Whitebread Protestants: Food and Religion in American Culture, reviewed by Howell Williams John Granger, The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius, and Popularity of Joanne Rowling’s Harry Potter Novels, reviewed by Paul Custodio Bube George Aichele and Richard Walsh, eds., Screening Scripture: Intertextual Connections Between Scripture and Film, reviewed by Michael J. Gilmour Richard A. Blake, Afterimage: The Indelible Catholic Imagination of Six American Filmmakers, reviewed by Christopher Garbowski Robert K. Johnston, Reel Spirituality: Theology and Film in Dialogue, reviewed by Robert M. Lindsey
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.410 | 0.406 |
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".