MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404366533 · doi:10.26443/jcreor.v5i2.107

Editorial Address & Advisory Board

2024· article· en· W4404366533 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gerbern Oegema, Amanda Rosini, Elyse MacLeod, Aaron Ricker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Council for Research on Religion · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second issue of volume five of the Journal of the Council for Research on Religion (JCREOR) is a special issue, From Indigenous ‘Religions’ to Indigenous Values. Planned and realized in collaboration with Philip P. Arnold (Syracuse University), the Indigenous Values Initiative (IVI), and the American Indian Law Alliance (AILA), this volume offers a collection of responses and articles that speak to the themes and tensions noted in the Report on Indigenous Religious Freedom or Belief, presented by the United Nation’s Office of the External Special Rapporteur on Religious Freedom or Belief, which we have gained special permission to republish here in full. This issue provides input on the report but also examines the restrictions and limitations imposed by the categories of religion and/or belief when working with Indigenous nations and communities. The responses to Special Rapporteur Ahmed Shaheed’s report discuss not only the usefulness of the categories of religion and belief but also their limitations, which hinder much-needed discussions about Indigenous values and sovereignty. The articles address the historical injustices faced by Indigenous nations and communities in the name of religious freedom, the need for decolonial approaches to the study of religion, and the colonial tensions created by the categories of religious freedom and belief and their relationship to the Doctrine of Christian Discovery. The issue concludes with a reflection by the Special Rapporteur.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Council for Research on ReligionSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207