Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thou knoWst Us common, all that lives must die, passing through nature to eternity' (,Hamlet, I.ii.72-73)'T he ubiquitous reality of death can desensitize us to its crushing impact on the individual.For those in grief, the world stops with the numbing news of the loss of a friend or family member.The bereaved sometimes marvel at how the rest of the world continues untroubled with its quotidian affairs when their world has come to a (sometimes dramatic) halt.When we suffer the loss of those dear to us, it ruptures our sense of reality, shattering the world as we knew it and often leaving us desperately searching for ways to pick up the pieces.Personal loss compels us to reconfigure our world and reconstitute our identity, since we define ourselves in relation to others, particularly those closest to us.* 2 Mourning rituals in all their diversity facilitate our renegotiation of reality.Despite their daily occurrences and religious import, contemporary mourning rituals have been under-theorized in religious studies.31.1 wish to express my thanks to Mark Mclnroy for his characteristically insightful comments on an earlier draft of this essay.I also wish to thank Erik Resly for his extremely helpful suggestions on a later draft.Lastly, let me extend my heartfelt thanks to Ros and Glenn Crichton and Adam Crichton for their friendship, their vision for COPING, and their willingness to journey with those walking (and more often than not stumbling) in the valley of the shadow of death.Their wit and wisdom have helped hundreds of grieving souls find their way on their journeys in grief.This article is a tribute to their work.2. "Death radically challenges all socially objectivated definitions of reality-of the world, of others, and of self* (Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.003 |
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".