Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Philosophy of religious studies’ is one possible name for a type of normative practice that has always been an inseparable part of that discipline itself. It is neither part of philosophy of religion nor an over-arching discipline that looks down in judgment upon religious studies. We reject the idea that it assesses scholarship using sui generis criteria: it is a form of metatheoretical assessment that uses the same tools that all scholarship uses, namely concepts, theories and methods. We hold this view pragmatic reasons: philosophy of religious studies promises to be more useful if we start by assuming that it shares concepts, theories and methods with much work done in that discipline. We proceed by clarifying relevant senses of discipline, religious studies, philosophy and philosophy-of, and we engage with the work of Kevin Schilbrack to illustrate our differences from his view (granted that similarities between our views outweigh these differences).
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 | 0.036 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".