The Denominational Society: A Reappraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1969 Andrew Greeley contradicted prevailing opinion by predicting that organized religion would be a vigorous component of American society in the year 2000. His predictions were based on a theory that stressed how religion provided answers to questions -- meaning -- and a sense of attachment -- belonging -- that were available in few other major social institutions. Thus, religion could be expected to answer the claims of those who would brush it away, and hang onto its adherents and their children. We assess his predictions using data that not only span the last quarter of the twentieth century (1972-1998) but also record the religious experiences of people born in the first 75 years of the century. Greeley's predictions are confirmed in the data. The religious changes that have occurred are more consistent with the supply-side approach to religion than with any notion of secularization. In a coda we consider and reject the notion of "American Exceptionalism." 1 Prep...
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".