Editorial—Religious fundamentalism: new theoretical and empirical challenges across religions and cultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Processes of secularisation are taking place in many regions of the world, especially in the countries of Western Europe as well as in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Korea and Japan, but also in Iran and in some North African countries, and recently even in the United States, which had been thought to be particularly religious (Arab Barometer 2019a, b;Inglehart 2021;Pollack and Rosta 2017;Reader 2012;Voas and Chaves 2016).But the decreasing social relevance of religion, reflected in the decline both of religious beliefs and practices, and of membership of religious communities, is not unilinear.Alongside and running counter to these secularising tendencies are also movements of religious self-assertion that can be seen across the world.The most visible tendencies for European observers are perhaps those of radical Islamism, with its claim to superiority over secular interpretations of the world, its bizarre forms of social exclusion, and its transgression of boundaries, which can even entail violence.We read almost every day reports in the media about the use of violence against women in Iran who have allegedly violated the dress code enforced by the morality police, about the legal persecution of homosexuals in the United Arab Emirates, and about the exclusion of women from work and higher levels of education in Afghanistan.There are frequent protests.In Iran, thousands of women (and men) have been taking to the streets for months under the slogan "Woman, Life, Freedom" to protest against the Mullah regime.In Afghanistan, many women are undermining the Taliban's prohibitions and its attempts to close schools and stop women from studying by secretly meeting to study and teach children.Some even dare to fight back publicly, with the Taliban responding with violence, firing their Kalashnikovs in the air and using water cannons.
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 | 0.008 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.010 |
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".