MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Who Are the Baby Boomers?

2022· book-chapter· en· W4306935096 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abby Day

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomersArgument (complex analysis)SecularizationReligiosityPessimismSociologyHistoryPolitical scienceLawEpistemologyMedicinePhilosophyDemographic economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This introductory chapter to the book outlines the concept of ‘Baby Boomer’ and why it is important. The main argument in the chapter, and sustained throughout the book, is that in terms of Anglicanism, members of the Baby Boomer generation born to the previous active Anglican generation rejected their religiosity and raised the least religious generations ever. The story needs to be told of how this happened, and why the trend is likely to be irreversible. The book further develops that initial focus by suggesting important comparisons to Christian decline more widely, and argues that the book’s research undermines key aspects of secularisation theses. The criteria for the sample upon which the research and this book are based were tight: people interviewed were born in the 1940s and 1950s to church-attending Anglicans, were baptised and confirmed, and then became ex-churched and, in their own descriptions, non-religious. To follow previous research carried out mostly in England with a small Canadian sample (Day 2017), most (38) of the 55 interviewees are British; 17 are Canadian; and 34 are women. Following socio-economic classification systems, all but four are situated within middle class strata.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.004

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligion and Society Interactions→French-language works237,207→