MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7119473134 · doi:10.63389/ukk.115213

”Ei oo puhuttu.”

2022· article· W7119473134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jenni Spännäri, Laura Kallatsa, Kati Tervo-Niemelä

Bibliographic record

VenueUskonto katsomus ja kasvatus · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReligiosityRelation (database)Qualitative researchQualitative propertyFamily life

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decline in religiosity is observed not only at the level of societies, but also in families. In the study of religious education, not enough attention has been paid to how much religion is talked about in families. This article examines discussing and non-discussing religion in Finnish families: 1) Do Finnish families discuss religion? 2) What kinds of differences exist between generations in discussing religion? 3) What are the reasons for and consequences of discussing or non-discussing religion? The research material consists of quantitative and qualitative material. Quantitative data was collected by telephone interviews in five countries at the turn of the year 2020–2021. Qualitative data was collected in family interviews in 2019–2021. The research is part of a larger international project that examines the transmission oftradition and religiosity and its change in families between generations in five different countries (Finland, Germany, Italy, Hungary and Canada). Our key findings are that 1) a culture of non-discussing is strong in families, both in relation to issues of personal importance to the family members and in relation to religiosity, 2) the culture of non-discussing is challenged, as the youngest generation discusses religion more than their parents and grandparents, and 3) discussing and non-discussing is strongly linked to family security and family dynamics. Uskonnollisuuden heikentymistä havaitaan paitsi yhteiskuntien, myös perheiden tasolla. Uskontokasvatusta tutkittaessa ei ole aikaisemmin kiinnitetty riittävästi huomiota siihen, miten paljon perheissä puhutaan uskonnosta. Tämä artikkeli tarkastelee uskonnosta puhumista ja puhumattomuutta suomalaisissa perheissä: 1) Puhutaanko suomalaisissa perheissä uskonnosta? 2) Millaisia eroja sukupolvien välillä on uskonnosta puhumisessa ja puhumattomuudessa? 3) Mitkä ovat uskonnosta puhumisen ja puhumattomuuden syyt ja seuraukset? Tutkimusaineisto koostuu määrällisestä ja laadullisesta aineistosta. Määrällinen aineisto koostuu viidessä maassa vuodenvaihteessa 2020–2021 puhelinhaastatteluilla kerätystä aineistosta. Laadullinen aineisto on kerätty perhehaastetteluissa vuosina 2019–2021. Tutkimus on osa kansainvälistä hanketta, joka tarkastelee perinteensiirtoa ja uskonnollisuutta ja sen muutosta perheissä sukupolvien välillä viidessä eri maassa (Suomi, Saksa, Italia, Unkari ja Kanada).Keskeiset tuloksemme ovat, että 1) perheissä esiintyy vahvana puhumattomuuden kulttuuria, sekä suhteessa itselle tärkeisiin asioihin että suhteessa uskonnollisuuteen, 2) tämä kulttuuri on murtumassa, sillä nuorin sukupolvi puhuu uskonnosta vanhempiaan ja isovanhempiaan enemmän ja 3) puhumisen ja puhumattomuuden kulttuuri linkittyy vahvasti turvan kokemiseen perheessä ja perheen sisäiseen dynamiikkaan.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.005

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.281 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUskonto katsomus ja kasvatusSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207