Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this introduction, we outline a comparative tool for studying communicative ideologies and practices, which we call ‘religious suasion’. Developing a conversation about religious forms of ‘suasion’ is important because it provides a vocabulary for comparing parallel practices of religious influence across different religious communities, allowing for more nuanced understandings of what might commonly – and negatively – be termed ‘proselytizing’. The proposed analytical frame is not concerned with how the ‘convert’ might experience religious change, nor with how social and religious change unfolds on a grand scale. Rather, it interrogates and puts into dialogue multiple forms of discursive practice, demonstrations of virtue, and material forms of religion to reach beyond suasive strategies based on formal doctrines about religious propagation that tend to be associated with traditionally evangelistic religious communities, especially with Christianity. Focusing on the rhetorical strategies, religious imaginaries, and ethical evaluations that underpin how religious actors pursue change in others and in and of the world, ‘religious suasion’ contributes to the development of an anthropology of influence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".