MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403714097 · doi:10.26443/jcreor.v5i1.106

Editorial Address & Advisory Board

2024· article· en· W4403714097 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gerbern Oegema, Amanda Rosini, Elyse MacLeod, Shaun Retallick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Council for Research on Religion · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicIndian History and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first issue of volume five of the Journal of the Council for Research on Religion (JCREOR) is a call by the editors to examine and understand social cohesions and conflicts, with particular interest in what role religion or religious traditions play within communities of diverse peoples. We sought first to understand how tension points arise within communities, and second, to examine the role played by religion in creating or appeasing these tension points. This issue is thus dedicated to probing, not only the tensions that arise within religiously diverse communities but the solutions that are developed in response to criticism or conflict. The studies in this issue address: the fractures that have been created in the Orthodox world by the Russian Orthodox Church’s support for the ongoing war in Ukraine; the tensions between liberal and traditional standpoints when discussing the Vedāntic tradition and the philosophy of the Upanishads; the tension and cohesion created by how different Turkish faith communities have been negotiating their role in the preservation of Ottoman architectural heritage; and, finally, how attempts at creating social cohesion in the Southern state of Karnataka have led to tensions between Muslim and Hindu communities.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0110.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2230.183

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.050 · 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
GenreEditorial

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 the Council for Research on ReligionSame topicIndian History and PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207