MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251493855 · doi:10.1558/bsor.v44i1.26746

Religion Clichés

2015· article· en· W4251493855 on OpenAlexaff
Tenzan Eaghll

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin for the Study of Religion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicStudy and Philosophy of Religion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClichéPoliticsContext (archaeology)Religious studiesSociologyEpistemologyAestheticsPhilosophyLiteratureHistoryLawPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Framed as a critique of a 1972 article by Ninian Smart, this essay seeks to expose some of the popular and academic clichés associated with the study of religion. Exploring the historical and philosophical context of clichés such as religion is the sacred or religion is about peace, the author suggests that the academic study of religion is intertwined with a series of essentializations that obscure the political context of the religious education. The essay is simultaneously an attempt to update the list of clichés first identified by Smart, and to expose the philosophical and political assumptions represented by the study of religion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.033
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin for the Study of ReligionSame topicStudy and Philosophy of ReligionFrench-language works237,207