MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385771818 · doi:10.5334/snr.163

The Social Imaginary of Science and Nonreligion: Narrating the Connection in the Anglophone West

2023· article· en· W4385771818 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rebecca Catto, Rachael Shillitoe, Stephen Jones, Tom Kaden, Fern Elsdon‐Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueSecularism and Nonreligion · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTempleton Religion Trust
KeywordsThe ImaginarySecularitySociologyIrrational numberVariety (cybernetics)NarrativeSocial sciencePower (physics)Gender studiesEpistemologyReligious studiesPsychologyPsychoanalysisPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous sociological research on science and religion, and secularity and nonreligion, has highlighted a consistent connection between science and nonreligious identities. Yet, the dynamics of this association have not been explored in depth. Building upon a growing body of work, this article adopts a relational approach to science and nonreligion to analyze nonreligious life scientists and members of the public in Canada and the UK’s narratives around science and religion. Across a variety of nonreligious identities, they tend to presume religion is irrational and consequently incompatible with science, idealize science, and refer to religious people as a less scientific outgroup. Upbringing, friendships, workspaces, and education all contribute to beliefs about science, (non)religion, and society. The social imaginary that to be modern is to be secular and scientific has enduring cultural power within these Western contexts, affecting daily life. Whether this is the case in other countries is a question for future research.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecularism and NonreligionSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207