Luca Ozzano & Alberta Giorgi, European Culture Wars and the Italian Case. Which side are you on ? New York, Routledge, coll. “Routlege Studies in Religion and Politics”, 2016, 241 p.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’originalité de cet ouvrage réside dans son approche sociologique généraliste de \nla politisation de questions « religieuses » en Italie, souvent regardée comme une anomalie en Europe. En effet, plusieurs travaux en science politique et en sociologie des religions ont souligné les liens entre les recompositions du champ religieux, l’extension des prises de position du Vatican et de la Conférence Episcopale italienne, et les changements du champ politique italien depuis les années 1990. Toutefois, la sociologie des problèmes publics a été peu mobilisée dans la littérature, davantage sur les signes religieux que sur les débats sur l’enseignement religieux. Les deux auteurs se démarquent d’approches néo-institutionnalistes courantes en sociologie de la laïcité, pour aborder les dynamiques de la construction socio-politique desdites « guerres culturelles », les cadrages et les coalitions changeants sur des objets « religieux » (p. 16).
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".