MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391894320 · doi:10.1111/rsr.16839

THE EVERLASTING PEOPLE: G.K. CHESTERTON AND THE FIRST NATIONS. By Matthew J.Milliner. Contributions by David Iglesias, David Hooker, and Amy Peeler. Foreword by Casey Church. Hansen Lectureship Series. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2021. Pp. xxii + 156. Paper, $20.00.

2023· article· en· W4391894320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Austin M. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)ClassicsPhilosophyTheologyHistoryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

and crucial archives to reevaluate how racialized structures have ignored how Afro-diasporic religious traditions represent sensorium discourses that problematize simple dichotomies between religion and magic, intentionality and compulsion, and neurological and "folk" wisdom.Pace much "Western" religious discourse that focuses on the brain as the center of devotional and perceptive life, Pérez offers a vibrant picture of the gut (which the author expands beyond just the stomach) as a site of serving, perceiving, and knowing gods, spirits, and religious community.For students of Black Atlantic religious traditions, affect theory, philosophy of mind, and religion and colonialism, this is a very useful little guide.Copious cases and rich examples give the book both strength and weakness in that it feels like a chapter to a more expansive book than a quick guide.And yet, The Gut is readable, robust, and akin to Pérez's copious examples, beneficial to consume.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.044

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligious Studies ReviewSame topicHistory of Science and MedicineFrench-language works237,207