MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6974252826 · doi:10.58094/ggy5-0522

Many around the globe say it’s important their leader stands up for people’s religious beliefs

2024· report· en· W6974252826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePew Research Center · 2024
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJohn Templeton Foundation
KeywordsGlobeLatin AmericansSurvey researchPublic opinionPhoneCenter (category theory)Research center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Pew Research Center analysis explores public attitudes about the religious qualities of national leaders in 35 countries in North America, Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East-North Africa region, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Among the main findings are that, when asked about the leader of their country, people around the world are generally much more likely to say it is important to have someone who stands up for people with their religious beliefs than to say the leader needs to have strong religious beliefs of their own or to have the same beliefs as they do. The Center conducted nationally representative surveys of 40,494 adults in 34 countries from Jan. 5 to May 22, 2024. All surveys were conducted over the phone in Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Surveys were conducted face-to-face in Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Turkey. In Australia, we used a mixed-mode probability-based online panel. In the U.S., the analysis was drawn from an online survey of 12,693 adults conducted from Feb. 13 to 25, 2024. The survey used Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), as well as the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, the NORC Amerispeak Panel and the SSRS Opinion Panel. All four panels are national survey panels recruited through random sampling (not “opt-in” polls). This analysis was produced by Pew Research Center as part of the Pew-Templeton Global Religious Futures project, which analyzes religious change and its impact on societies around the world. Funding for the Global Religious Futures project comes from The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John Templeton Foundation (grant 63095). This publication does not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePew Research CenterFrench-language works237,207