MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414957412 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331205

Religiosity, religion values, and science values in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

2025· article· en· W4414957412 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hannah J. Kramer, Niamh McLoughlin, Kathleen H. Corriveau, Jocelyn Dautel

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsReligiosityNorthern irelandThe RepublicRelation (database)Value (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the relation between religion and science in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. That is, we test the extent to which religiosity and valuing religion correspond with valuing science. We explore two contexts where religion and science are integral parts of society-Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As part of a larger study, participants (N = 739 adults living in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland) reported their level of religiosity as well as responded to a survey that measured how much they value religion and science. In both contexts, religion and science were negatively related. In other words, participants who reported being more religious or who valued religion more tended to value science less. Findings are discussed in relation to the value of taking a global approach to studying religion and science as well as how this type of relation may contribute to polarization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology→French-language works237,207→