MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393216301 · doi:10.1080/1177083x.2024.2333544

Māori atheism: a decolonising project?

2024· article· en· W4393216301 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Masoumeh Rahmani, Peter Adds, Rebekah Senanayake

Bibliographic record

VenueKōtuitui New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculty of Education, Victoria University of WellingtonQueen's UniversityVictoria UniversityVictoria University of WellingtonQueen's University BelfastJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsAtheismSociologyPhilosophyReligious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT New Zealand census data points to a pattern of religious change – a growing sector of the Māori community are disaffiliating from Christianity at roughly the same rate as the ‘no religion’ category is expanding. Drawing on 16 in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews with Māori who do not believe in god(s), we explore the contours of atheism and how it is experienced and articulated in their specific cultural location. Our analysis shows that Māori atheism is plural and often politically charged. Religion is commonly viewed as a colonial tool for the oppression of Māori people/culture, against which atheism stands as a decolonising project. Aside from this, the participants’ operationalisation of intellectual doubt and other moral criticisms, including religious hypocrisy, religious exclusivism and religious bigotry, were found to be consistent with the narratives of atheists elsewhere.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKōtuitui New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences OnlineSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207