Review: <i>La Scientology: sur la scène religieuse et sociale contemporaine</i>, edited by Massimo Introvigne and Bernadette Rigal-Cellard
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Review| November 01 2023 Review: La Scientology: sur la scène religieuse et sociale contemporaine, edited by Massimo Introvigne and Bernadette Rigal-Cellard La Scientology: sur la scène religieuse et sociale contemporaine. Edited by Massimo Introvigne and Bernadette Rigal-Cellard. EME Éditions, 2022. 252 pages. € 25.50 hardcover; ebook available. Susan J. Palmer Susan J. Palmer McGill University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Nova Religio (2023) 27 (2): 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2023.27.2.139 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Susan J. Palmer; Review: La Scientology: sur la scène religieuse et sociale contemporaine, edited by Massimo Introvigne and Bernadette Rigal-Cellard. Nova Religio 1 November 2023; 27 (2): 139–142. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/nr.2023.27.2.139 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentNova Religio Search This volume, written in the French language, belongs to the genre of Scientology Studies 2.0. As explained in his introduction, Massimo Introvigne notes this concept was first proposed by American sociologist, Donald Westbrook, in his 2020 article for Religion Compass—a concept that recognizes the substantial body of work by historians, sociologists and legal experts on this 70-year old religion. As each of the five contributors point out, Scientology has sparked controversy ever since its beginnings in the 1950s in the United States. Today, as a well-known international, relatively new religious movement, it is still routinely referred to as a cult in articles and television shows generated by the mass media. Scientology's apostates are lionized while their complaints and criticisms are broadcast. Against this backdrop of controversy (genuine or concocted), five scholars embark on an exploration of this unique spiritual movement. They accomplish several tasks. First, they provide the reader... You do not currently have access to this content.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.030 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".