The Confessional Differences in Perception of the Factors Insulting the Religious Feelings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study is concerned with the actual for modern Russia problem of law enforcement practice under Article 148 of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for actions committed with the purpose of offending religious feelings. At the same time, until now, there is no uniform understanding of what the religious sentiments of believers are and what are the actions that can insult them. The article describes the results from the survey organized to study confessional differences in the perception of factors of offending the feelings of the believers. The study involved 220 representatives of the main confessions of Russia: Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism. The respondents were asked to choose those actions from the proposed list that could wound their religious feelings or to suggest their own variant (all questions were composed with reference to doctrinal characteristics of confessions, but were of similar nature). The results obtained indicate that insult to the feelings of believers is subjective and has confessional characteristics determined by the content of the religious teachings. The results of the study are of unconditional novelty and significance in view of great social demand and lack of similar studies.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".