Bibliographic record
Abstract
The divergent trajectories in the legalization of same-sex marriage amidst disparate levels of religiosity challenges conventional wisdom about the relationship between religion, state, and society. Contrary to the conventional belief that higher religiosity in countries fosters conservative views and resistance to progressive social reforms, Argentina and Chile present an intriguing anomaly. Utilizing data from the World Values Survey and examining the historical, political, and social contexts of each country, this paper seeks to understand why Argentina, with its higher religiosity and constitutional favoritism towards Catholicism, became the first Latin American country to legalize same-sex marriage in 2010, while Chile, less religious but more socially conservative, followed much later in 2021. The paper explores the divergent pre and post-dictatorship economic philosophies, governmental structures, sociopolitical landscapes and the distinct roles of the Catholic Church in 21st century Chilean and Argentine politics. It argues that in Argentina, individual political views and a vibrant civil society have developed independently of religious beliefs, fostering a political culture more open to progressive social reform. Conversely, Chile’s entrenched neoliberal policies and the Catholic Church’s sustained influence in Chilean civil society align with more conservative social values, impeding similar progress. These findings challenge the assumption that higher levels of religiosity necessarily correlate with social conservatism and underscore the complex interplay between religion, government, and social values. This research not only illuminates the nuanced dynamics at play in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Latin America but also suggests broader implications for understanding the impact of religiosity on political and social attitudes globally.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.006 |
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".