MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412163369 · doi:10.1525/jrpc.2025.2475630

Disrupting or Dwelling?

2025· article· en· W4412163369 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rosemary Oyinlola Popoola

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Planning and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper moves beyond the center of the theocratic class of the Nigerian Pentecostal circle to explore a marginal Onitsha-based prophet named Chukwuemeka Ohanaemere Odumeje, who claimed the spotlight of Pentecostal theatrics in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and seems to have sustained it by centering himself in popular imagination. I combine a textual analysis of many snippets of media (which are now part of popular culture) and a semiotic analysis of signs and signifiers within both specialized literature in Nigerian Pentecostalism and African popular culture—to examine this imbrication of Pentecostal performativity and popular imagination. I highlight disrupting and dwelling to index resistance or alignment within established Pentecostal performativity and its imbrication with popular culture. Specifically, I use Abimbola Adelakun’s idea of Pentecostal performativity to argue that Odumeje both disrupts and dwells within established Pentecostal performative practices, deploys digital media and popular culture referents in ways that place him in popular imagination, where his sacred spectacle mixes with the quotidian on social media to make him an “incredible pastor.” Together, I show that not only does social media complicate and create room for debating Pentecostal theology, as Adelakun aptly argued, but that by turning our gaze away from politics and Pentecostalism and toward Pentecostal performativity and popular culture, we can extend and recast the field of religion and cultural studies.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicUrban Planning and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207