Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In recent years, anthropologists and theologians have been engaging in conversation with one another. Building on, and branching out from, that conversation, this article calls for a careful ethnographic engagement with not just “God talk” (the literal meaning of theology) but also with the figure of God itself. Such a shift can take us from theology as an abstract, scholarly, discursive realm to the messy and often‐unpredictable ways in which God shows up in the world. It can attune us to how God appears in concrete social, material, and historical contexts by way of divine interventions, modes of presence, and different forms of mediation. I suggest that the genre of ethnography—skilled at paying attention to the fleeting and emergent and characterized by a generous openness and curiosity—is uniquely suited for engaging with an object like God. Working through some common objections and suggesting ways forward, this article proposes as one possibility an apophatic ethnography—a humble mode of writing that does not insist on proclaiming truths but acknowledges the limits of human knowledge. Without ever being able to capture its object, an ethnography of God can offer glimpses of how the divine is entangled with social and material worlds.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".