MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390948680 · doi:10.1177/00377686231219362

Spirituality and social engagement

2023· article· en· W4390948680 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Compass · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpiritualitiesSpiritualityEmbodied cognitionSociologyIndividualismIntrapersonal communicationSocial psychologyPsychologyEpistemologyPolitical scienceInterpersonal communicationLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I look at how spirituality can be a wellspring of social engagement and activism, based mainly on my research in Quebec, Canada. Less organizational spiritualities are often dismissed as individualistic, narcissistic, and unconcerned with collective well-being. Along with is a growing mass of evidence contributed by other scholars shows that this is often not the case. Using mainly examples from Quebec where my research is situated, I show that spiritual practice is often social; even embodied newer spiritualities typically involve the presence of others; their authenticity is often gauged not only in terms of intrapersonal, embodied experience but also over the longer term, by transformations in close relationships. Spirituality is often mobilized for progressive social ends but not always. I explore some of the ways that spirituality can nourish social engagement and raise the question of how social activism can bolster spirituality, becoming effectively a form of spiritual practice.

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.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.293 · 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