MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117484072 · doi:10.1080/23753234.2025.2584661

Young, British and searching: rethinking secularization through Gen Z

2025· article· en· W7117484072 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Sanders, Susanne E. Gilbert, Sara Spear

Bibliographic record

VenueChurch Communication and Culture · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsSt. Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecularizationFaithSpiritualityAgency (philosophy)NarrativeIdentity (music)AmbivalenceDiversity (politics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

‘Generation Z’ is a generational cohort more likely to choose ‘no religion’ as their preferred self-designation and to seek out their own personal approach to spirituality beyond institutional religion. This article analyses the findings of the British sample of a cross-national survey of 4,889 young people (18-29) from eight countries. It explores the religious identity and ethical views of British young people, including how their views align or diverge from doctrinal or cultural expectations of the three most prominent faith traditions in Britain: Catholicism, Anglicanism and Islam. The study reveals the complexity of young Britons’ navigation of faith and spirituality, and indicates that linear secularization narratives do not adequately reflect the reality of changing attitudes towards institutional religion. We argue that more nuanced interpretive frameworks that include the reality of human agency can better account for the diversity of belief and unbelief among Generation Z.

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)0.008
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 score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.329 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChurch Communication and CultureSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207