Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Occasional religious practice is a way of relating to religion that is characterized by participation in religious practices occasionally rather than routinely, most often in connection with certain types of occasions, including holidays, life transitions, and times of crisis. Anchored in three years of ethnographic research in the Anglican tradition in Toronto, this interdisciplinary study employs qualitative theological methods to develop the concept of occasional religious practice. Sociologically, occasional religious practice is a consistent yet underdeveloped theme in research on religious change in Canada, the United States, and Europe. Drawing out this common thread reveals the diversity of religious and nonreligious identities claimed by those who participate occasionally in Christian worship and allows for the identification of different types of occasional practitioners based on motivations for participation. Within the field of ritual studies, occasional practice is defined as selective participation in a ritual system that some practice routinely. In contemporary contexts, multiple ritual systems overlap and participants intuitively negotiate the strategic selection of certain practices. Theologically, this research challenges the assumption that liturgical participants are fully believing, actively practicing, morally compliant, and formally affiliated with a tradition. It attends to the lived theology of occasional practitioners on the liturgical and theological margins. Privileging the perspectives of occasional practitioners centers certain aspects of worship, including materiality, emotion, and relationship, although they also speak of God, tradition, and ethics. The book values the very ordinary experience of occasional religious practice and invites dialogue among people who relate to religion in different ways.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".