MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7048655816

Making the Mosaic Work? A Study of the Canadian Interfaith Movement

2014· dissertation· en· W7048655816 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre for Studies in Religion and Society, University of VictoriaVictoria University
KeywordsInterfaith dialoguePoliticsDiversity (politics)MosaicSocial movementIdentity (music)Religious diversity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, where one’s religious identity is a private affair, organized interfaith initiatives provide one of the few public forums where one is encouraged to affirm a religious conviction. More and more, Canadians are encountering different religions and spiritual paths in workplaces, neighbourhoods, leisure activities, politics and the daily news. Alongside these encounters interfaith initiatives have developed, especially in the larger urban centers of Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. While similar interfaith initiatives can be found across the country, variations in religious populations and pressing political / social concerns have influenced the distinct character of interfaith activities in each centre. Drawing on findings from 110 in-depth interviews with active members of Canadian interfaith initiatives, this thesis explores the matrix of influences which have contributed to the development of the interfaith movement within Canada and as part of the larger global interfaith movement. The research examines the motivations, approaches and types of interfaith work practised highlighting the diverse resources the interfaith movement offers for bridging the religious diversity found within the contemporary world. The study also calls attention to various challenges facing the Canadian and global interfaith movement including questions about representation, missing voices, stagnation, the need for deeper exploration of difference, strategies for intrafaith dialogue, measuring impact, and finding the required resources to build more tools and forums for interfaith work.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0730.024
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→