The social authority of Religion in Canada : a study of contemporary death rituals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social authority of traditional organized Christian religion has changed dramatically over the twentieth century. In 2002, less than 25% of Canadians were members of a traditional faith community or regularly participated in formal or informal organized religious practices. Nonetheless, Reginald Bibby has claimed Christianity is making a comeback in Canada. He has argued that the continued reliance on religious rites of passage by nominal and non-affiliates represents the continued influence of traditional Christian religion on the lives of Canadians, and the return to traditional religious communities for rites of passage represents opportunities for those faith communities to bring the lost sheep back to the fold. This thesis tests Bibby's claim through an examination of the social authority of traditional organized religion over contemporary death rituals practiced in Canada. Although Bibby may be encouraged by the continued presence of traditional Christian religious leadership in many contemporary death rituals, the inclusion of religion is often a precarious one that is more often the result of a situational religious response to fulfill a cultural expectation than the desire to perform a sacred ritual that reinforces one's relationship with a traditional faith community or the transcendent being it worships.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".