MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402409337 · doi:10.1177/00084298241270666

The family transmission of religion in Canada: An intergenerational approach to religious socialization

2024· article· en· W4402409337 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jacob Legault‐Leclair

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsSocializationSociologyTransmission (telecommunications)Gender studiesPsychologySocial scienceTelecommunicationsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article seeks to measure the effect of parental socialization on the intergenerational transmission of religion and religiosity levels in Canada. Basing the analysis on the cohort replacement theory, the author is able to quantify the intergenerational change in religiosity. The use of a novel database – The Transmission of Religion across Generations – allows the author to demonstrate that there was an intergenerational decline in affiliation within all of the religious groups analysed (Catholicism, mainline Protestant, evangelical and Pentecostal, Islam, and ‘other religions’) and that the average level of religiosity is also decreasing. Among the socialization factors examined, only ‘talking about religion with certain family members’ and ‘the presence of religion in the household during childhood’ had a positive effect on the religiosity of the respondents. However, despite the positive effect of these indicators, the results reveal that their strength is not sufficient to reverse the overall trend of intergenerational religious decline and general secularization.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207