MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406216237 · doi:10.3390/rel16010057

Making It Count: Pilgrimage and the Enumeration of Publics

2025· article· en· W4406216237 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Coleman

Bibliographic record

VenueReligions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPilgrimagePublicsSecularityEnumerationSociologyHistoryReligious studiesGeographyPolitical scienceLawPoliticsPhilosophyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An activity that is widespread but rarely closely examined in studies of pilgrimage is the enumeration of pilgrims (and related visitors) to shrines and their environs. Such “biopolitics of hosting” can play a significant role in mobilising the religious imagination of shrine administrators, especially in contexts of apparently growing secularity. Number can be deployed by professional hosts to represent undifferentiated visiting publics in terms of spiritual possibility. In these terms, precision in statistics is likely to be less useful than figures that can be viewed through a distanced lens of potentiality. These ideas are developed through an examination of the Christian pilgrimage site of Walsingham, in eastern England.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligionsSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207