Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book draws attention to the texts, mechanisms, strategies, and initiatives that address and combat sexual(ised) spiritual abuse in five world religions. It goes beyond identifying, describing or characterising spiritual abuse in multiple religious traditions and rape culture settings, instead describing what is being done in diverse religious communities and settings to confront, address, resist, and heal from spiritual abuse. Just as none of the world religions are free from spiritual abuse, all have developed ways to detoxify, prevent, eliminate, and bring healing and justice in the face of its existence. Solution-focused activities range from analysis of sacred texts, to discussion forums, creation of self-representational visual and creative expressions, digital and other forms of activism and protest, specialist training courses, support groups, and survivor-led initiatives. The book will appeal to academics of religious studies with interest in rape culture and spiritual abuse, as well as upper-level undergraduates and postgraduates, and also religious leaders, or leaders of faith-based organisations, seeking to understand and to confront spiritual abuse and rape culture in their own communities. The Open Access version of this book, available at http://www.taylorfrancis.com, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".