Bibliographic record
Abstract
The seed for this research was sown back in the early 1990s, when Yvan Droz began studying the Kikuyu people of central Kenya.In his work, Droz observed links between urban migration and religious mobility (Droz 1999), leading him to propose the concept of religious butinage within the context of a discussion of the social practices of Kenyan Pentecostals (Droz 2000a(Droz , 2004)).The concept was later developed by Edio Soares in his doctoral thesis (Soares 2007(Soares , 2009)).In his own work, Soares systematized the concept and tested its coherence.Based on his ethnographic fieldwork in Brazil, Soares evoked the notion of voisinage ("neighborliness") as the fundamental logic governing butinage.Derived from the French verb butiner, which refers to the foraging behavior of bees and other pollinizing insects, the term was employed by Droz and Soares metaphorically to refer to the "to-ing and fro-ing" of believers between religious institutions.Both found that the employment of this biological metaphor corresponded, more than any formal terminology associated with "conversion," to the actual religious mobility of their Kenyan and Brazilian interviewees as manifest in their everyday practice.It is through these two case studies that a small research team began to form.In mid-2010, we launched a research project called "Structures anthropologiques du religieux: Butinage et voisinage," or Project StAR for short, under the direction of Droz as the project's principal investigator.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".