AN ARGUMENT IN DEFENSE OF A STRICTLY SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION: THE CONTROVERSY AT DELPHI . By DonaldWiebe. Toronto: Institute for the Advanced Study of Religion, 2021. Pp. xxvi + 345. E‐Book, open‐access.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protestant Reformation and the Age of Discovery, which ultimately reshaped the European intellectual landscape (Chapter 7).By the end of the nineteenth century (Chapter 8), we see the culmination of this millennial history with the work of scholars such as F. Max Mller (1823-1900), Jean Rville (1854-1908), and Cornelius Petrus Tiele (1830-1902) whose scientific spirit resulted in "the first genuine scientific congress of comparative religion" held in Paris in 1900.The book concludes with a reflection on the current state of Religious Studies, where the scientific method faces challenges from both religio-theological approaches and postmodernist critiques of scientific thought.Wiebe's book is a compelling and erudite showcase of his dedication to the scientific study of religion.It reflects his unwavering commitment to advancing a rigorous, scholarly, and scientific methodology for understanding religion(s).As such, it will undoubtedly be appreciated by all who share this approach, which seems increasingly marginal in contemporary academia.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it