MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400159687 · doi:10.32316/hse-rhe.2024.5255

“Crawling with Atheists”: Unbelief at Canadian Universities during the Sixties

2024· article· en· W4400159687 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tina Block

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAcademic Freedom and Politics
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OxfordUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian universities were regularly held to be seedbeds of atheism in the long sixties. This article interrogates that claim through an analysis of campus life at a selection of universities across Canada, with special attention given to the University of British Columbia. Drawing on campus publications, secular media sources, religious and humanist writings, and oral histories, this article shows that unbelief was openly discussed and addressed in neutral, sometimes positive, tones on a number of university campuses in Canada during that era. While university life contributed to the gradual erosion of the stigma against unbelief, the persistence of that stigma is evident in the lingering discomfort and periodic controversies associated with atheism on campus. The universities examined here were not crawling with atheists, but they did widen platforms and possibilities for challenging religious belief and helped to un-silence atheism during a period of significant religious change in Canada.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0760.039
Scholarly communication0.0140.004
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0030.008
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical Studies in Education / Revue d histoire de l éducationSame topicAcademic Freedom and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207