Prospek Pengembangan Ilmu Perbandingan Agama Di Indonesia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ilmu perbandingan agama adalah salah satu sebutan saja dari berapa sebutan terhadap “ilmu agama” (Science of Religion), “studi ilmiah agama” (Scientific Study of Religion), yang dalam perkembangan kemudian lalu orang dengan beberapa pertimbangan tertentu senang menyebutnya dengan “fenomenologi agama” (Phenomenology of Religion), “ilmu agama sistematik” (lebih dikenal dengan ” Science of Religion as a Systematic Disipline”), “sejarah agama-agama” (History of Religion(-s)), dan “ilmu perbandingan agama” (Comparative Religion, Comparative Study Of Religions) dan sebutan lainnya lagi. Pertimbangan selera penyebutan tertentu baik dengan Science of Religion, scientific a study of religion, Phenomenology of Religion, History of Religion (-s), Comparative Religion, Comparative Study Of Religions dan sebagainya- sudah barang tentu mempunyai maksud tertentu di samping ada hubungannya dengan lingkungan di mana ilmu perbandingan agama tersebut dilahirkan, tumbuh dan berkembang. Seperti di Amerika (Canada dan Amerika Utara), Eropa (Swedia, Inggris, Jerman, Prancis, Belanda, Spanyol, Italia), Asia (Jepang, India, Thailand, Indonesia), di USSR dan lain sebagainya. Juga ada hubungannya dengan lingkungan pengembangan akademik di mana ilmu perbandingan agama tersebut diasuh dalam suatu perguruan tinggi.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
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".