Metoder i religionshistoriske analyser - eksempler for studerende
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religionshistorie har været en klassisk disciplin til forståelse og præsentation af religionernes historie og udvikling fra oldtid til samtid. Som en væsentlig del af den bredere religionsvidenskab har den sammen med religionsfænomenologien undersøgt og undervist i de forskellige religioner, traditionelt set med sprog som væsentligste metode. Moderne religionshistorie lægger dog op til en bredere forståelse af metode, som sjældent har været særligt præcist defineret. Religionshistorisk tekstanalyse i praksis- metodeeksempler for studerende er et bud på en religionshistorisk metodebog med elleve kapitler skrevet af religionshistoriske forfattere fra de tre religionshistoriske miljøer. Foruden et introducerende kapitel indeholder bogen emner som videnskabsteoretisk indføring til metode, mundtlighed (oldnordisk religion), filologi (islam), fænomenologi (israelitisk religion), hermeneutik (buddhisme), begrebshistorie (esotericisme), socialhistorie (hinduisme), autoritet (kristendom), køn (jødedom) til performativitet (folkereligion) og narrativitet (babylonsk religion).
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.031 |
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".