Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract American modernism generally adopted the secularization thesis, imagining religion as properly disappearing in modern societies, and mocking a residual fundamentalism as backwards. Quiescent for several decades, the US fundamentalist political resurgence beginning in the 1970s was accompanied by the development of new genres of evangelical fiction and a new evangelical publishing and marketing network. As serious literary writers began to critique the Christian Right’s resurgent threat to pluralism, human rights, and democracy, they frequently misunderstood their object, confused by the secularization thesis and by the reigning paradigms of postmodernism and multiculturalism. In unrecognized ways, serious religiously interested literature often indirectly addressed the concerns and theologies of fundamentalism, the loudest expression of religiosity in the public square. Fundamentalist fiction, meanwhile, frequently had crossover appeal in its bestselling novels and film adaptations. Literary studies continues to trail history and the social sciences in paying attention to fundamentalism and its impact on American literature.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.374 | 0.186 |
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".