Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building on recent work by historians of science, many scholars studying the relationships between religion, theology, and science have stopped treating the concepts of science and religion as if they were natural kinds. But if we refrain from using these terms in an essentialist way, what comes next? Should both categories be abandoned, or perhaps replaced by other ones? This article argues that (1) in some cases the use of science and religion as generalizing concepts remains both unavoidable and responsible, (2) in other cases we need more specificity and acknowledgement of their contextuality, and (3) in general we need more attentiveness to newly emerging configurations of the ever-changing relationships between science(s) and religion(s). In particular, it is suggested that in the near future we may see science and religion coming together in an unprecedented way, namely as allies in a shared struggle against post-truth thinking, institution-skepticism, and societal marginalization.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.102 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.051 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".