MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401428434 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v11i4.2955

Salman Rushdie’s View On Religion

2024· article· en· W4401428434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shibin Varghese

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIslamic Studies and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Salman Rushdie, an acclaimed British Indian author, has consistently expressed complex views on religion, often reflecting his own secular humanist beliefs. Rushdie's perspectives are deeply influenced by his multicultural background and personal experiences, including the infamous fatwa issued against him following the publication of his novel "The Satanic Verses." Rushdie critiques religious fundamentalism and dogma, arguing that they can impede intellectual freedom and personal liberty. He often highlights the dangers of conflating faith with politics, suggesting that such intersections can lead to authoritarianism and violence. Rushdie advocates for a clear separation between religion and state, emphasizing the importance of secularism in protecting individual rights and fostering a pluralistic society. In essence, Salman Rushdie's view on religion is characterized by a staunch defense of free expression and secularism, coupled with a recognition of the profound impact of religious traditions on human culture and individual lives. He urges for a more open and tolerant approach to religious differences, advocating for dialogue and mutual respect in a globalized world.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicIslamic Studies and HistoryFrench-language works237,207