Bibliographic record
Abstract
Religion is fundamentally about belonging. This is how it is framed within the two dimensions, personal/individual and social, that dominate in definitions of religion: an experience of subjective belonging/identity at the individual level, and placement within particular social, institutional, and historical formations designated by the term “tradition.” Yet, just as belonging is experienced differentially across a city, by residents of different kinds and in different social, physical, and cultural locations, so too may it be with religion, where belonging may not be in fact seamless, undifferentiated, and singular across those who comprise a religious social body. We can see this as a kind of ambivalence, a constitutive and productive internal tension. This is not, however, something generally accounted for in our definitions of religions. What are the implications of seeing this kind of ambivalence in belonging as fundamental to the “religious,” as a phenomenon? If belonging itself can be multiform and variable in degree, cannot multiple forms of belonging coexist, without undermining the belonging that seems to define the “religious”? And, if we allow for differential experiences/degrees of belonging, what does that mean for our understanding of religious differences between religions, as well as within them? How do we address the articulation of commonality across religions—which troubles our understanding of religious belonging by not adhering to religious boundaries—alongside difference? This essay explores these issues in the context of early modern South Asian religions, with attention to attendant placements in urban and semi-urban landscapes that inform their articulation, to argue that the effort to name and value commonality is both intellectually and ethically imperative in our current moment.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.126 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".