Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is the outcome of a research network of invited women scholars organized with the intention of surveying the contribution of women working in the field of Religious Studies.The collection of essays, covering most of the major religious traditions, and which are published for the first time in this volume, reflects the current situation after twenty years of feminist scholarship in Canada concerned with women and religion.Feminist theories have been used by all contributors as a springboard permitting them to show that the assumption of unified monolithic religions and their respective canons is a fabrication created by scholarship based on a male perspective.Participants first met in September 1991, on the invitation of the Calgary Institute for the Humanities, University of Calgary. 1 This gathering marked the seventeenth anniversary of the first courses offered in Women and Religion at Concordia University, Montreal, in the academic year 1974-75.As well as being a time for assessment, it was also an opportunity to look to the future-to the pathways that are opening up to innovative and constructive ways of studying how the concepts of "genre" and "gender" affect the role and status of women in religion.There are acknowledgements to the many people who have contributed to this project.Firstly,
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.417 | 0.243 |
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".