Bibliographic record
Abstract
While discursive approaches and social theory enjoy some notoriety in the academic study of religion, the so-called critical turn is no stranger to challenges. Some reject it as philosophically apolitical; others, as ignorant of biological and psychological insights. In this edition of The Interview, we turn to an exchange with MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, whose work has informed how many scholars of religion approach the sciences and cultural politics. Chomsky sat with retired Canadian Broadcasting Corporation broadcaster and Continuing Senior Fellow of Massey College at the University of Toronto, Ian Alexander, and Chair of the Department of Linguistics at the University of Victoria, Martha McGinnis, as part of the John Albert Hall Lectures’ Values for a New World series at the University of Victoria’s Centre for Studies in Religion and Society. We’ve excerpted this rich exchange from a longer two-part interview which we encourage you to access on the CSRS’s YouTube channel: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1AZa5z85YY&t=4054s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDP71Q2-T3s&t=1s).
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.011 |
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".