Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Study of Religion in British Columbia is a story of enterprise, innovation and isolation. In this unique survey Brian J. Fraser examines the history and development of the institutions of higher education where religion is taught and describes the methods used to understand the religious dimension of human endeavour in Canada’s westernmost province. Fraser analyzes the sources, development and persistence of two distinct approaches to the study of religion in British Columbia: theological studies and religious studies. He traces the early strength and recent expansion of theological studies, especially among conservative evangelical Christians, and sets the creation of British Columbia’s only department of religious studies at the University of British Columbia in this context. He also describes the innovative curricula designed by several of the institutions for the study of religion in the province. Finally, he contends that the differing views on the nature of religion held by these institutions and their constituencies have led to a continuing isolation from each other. The Study of Religion in British Columbia is the latest volume in the Canadian Corporation for the Study of Religion’s series on the study of religion in Canada. Readers interested in the rich diversity of personalities and perspectives that have shaped religious studies in British Columbia will find here a concise description of its evolution and a thought-provoking examination of its significance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".