Religion and Nonreligion in Same Sex Marriage Debates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, questions about who makes up a family, the role of biology in defining sex, and the origins of human life have been the source of deep social, moral, and legal controversies. This book focuses on the debates around same-sex marriage in seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United States) and uses these debates to examine the demarcations and zones of transition between the religious and the nonreligious. Specifically, in a context of moral and religious diversification resulting from, among other things, the decentering of Christianity, the book analyzes the narratives, languages, and meanings constructed in the debate over marriage as a legal institution. What imaginaries emerge in relation to sexuality or the family when the Christian foundation of marriage is put under scrutiny? One of the novelties of this book is the use of legal controversies as a lens to observe the work of religious and nonreligious narratives and the materialities they produce. Rather than prioritizing the description of the values or worldviews of the nonreligious, the proposal is to understand "nonreligion" as a product of discursive disputes and the narration of alternative imaginaries about marriage configurations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".