Rite and Stone: Religious Belonging and Urban Space in Global Perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over long periods, interdisciplinary debates in urban studies on the relationships between religion and urban space were influenced by mainstream versions of modernization theory. These were based on the binary of urban modernity and nonurban (religious) tradition. However, historical urban research has shown that cities were also more often sites of religious innovation. Inspired by Jennifer Robinson’s understanding of cities as “ordinary” sites of sociality, with this special issue we contribute to this vibrant debate on religion and urbanism. The articles in it examine the role of places of worship as spatial and urban projects and address the following questions: How do religious actors become spatial entrepreneurs whose spatial projects shape cities? Which religiously motivated social and material forms emerge in cities? What are the practices and regimes that contribute to the spatialization of religion? How does the nature of places of worship alter and adapt to rapidly changing urban environments? And what are the consequences of religious buildings and other material forms for the social reality of cities? We argue that in contrast to former periods, when religious buildings were considered and constructed as authoritative buildings, these buildings are now much more fluid. Broad social transformations profoundly changed the roles played by and the social meanings attributed to them. Religious buildings and informal religious sites are not mere static architectural structures but bring with them a wide variety of spatial, economic, political, affective, and spiritual investments which make their construction, presence, and transformation a slippery object for urban planning logics and experts.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it