Mapping the Field of Religion, Globalization and Youth Agency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Youth.Religion.Globalization.Each term has been studied in relation to one of the other two, but few studies combine all three.The articles gathered in this Special Issue contribute to filling the gap.Focusing on the Youth Buddhist Society of India, David Geary and Manish Kumar's paper examines how connections with transnational Buddhist networks allow young members to creatively appropriate the ancient traditions of Indian Buddhism.These changing connections offer them a way to regain agency, even as they are net losers as India pursues a policy of economic globalization.Astrid Trolle's paper examines Filipino au pairs in Denmark, showing how geographical mobility rearranges their relationship to religion, including a sense of choice.The next paper, by Géraldine Mossière, also looks at the link between transnational migration and religious choice, in this case with respect to the impact on young French people of moving to Quebec.Centered on young converts to Islam, her ethnographic investigation describes the emergence of a narrative of hybridization, expressed through the prefix "inter" (intersectional, interreligious).Expanding upon the link between interfaith and globalization, the final paper, authored by Charles Mercier explores an interreligious association of French youth called Interfaith Tour, showing how young people use the resources of globalization to promote dialogue between religions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".