Les attitudes des Spirituels mais non religieux envers les relations homosexuelles et les rôles de genre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008 and 2018, the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) asked respondents from 44 countries if they self-identify as ‘I don’t follow a religion, but consider myself to be a spiritual person interested in the sacred or the supernatural’ (Spiritual But Not Religious, SBNR). This paper compares issue positions on same-sex relations and gender roles between SBNR respondents and religiously active, marginally affiliated and nonreligious and nonspiritual respondents. Previous studies show that more religious individuals tend to hold more right-leaning stances on many sociopolitical issues, due to more conservative religious and political socialization as well as influences from surrounding social environments. However, these previous studies have not looked at the potentially distinct category of SBNR. Our study finds that progressive attitudes extend to both the SBNR and the nonreligious and nonspiritual, the attitudes among respondents of both these categories being very similar when it comes to same-sex relations and gender roles.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".