Erratum to special section title in Studies in Religion / Sciences Religieuses 46/2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An error found its way into the title of the Special section (print) of issue 46(2). The title of the section should have read: Québécois and Canadian Representations of Religious-Secular Polarization The Editors of SR/SR and SAGE apologize for this regrettable error. The online Table of Contents will be updated http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/sira/46/2 . This erratum is linked to the introduction of issue in question, Studies in Religion / Sciences religieuses 2017, Vol. 46(2) 162–165 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0008429817695661 Une erreur s’est glissée dans le titre de la section thématique (version papier) du numéro 46(2). Le titre de cette section aurait dû se lire comme suit: La polarisation entre le religieux et le séculier dans les représentations des Québécois et Canadiens La rédaction de SR/SR et SAGE s’excusent pour cette erreur regrettable. La Table des matières en ligne sera mise à jour http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/sira/46/2 . Cet erratum est relié à l’introduction du numéro en question, Studies in Religion / Sciences religieuses 2017, Vol. 46(2) 162–165 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0008429817695661
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 | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.250 | 0.149 |
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".