Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 2011 Census in England and Wales, 14.1 million people, about a quarter of the population, reported that they have “no religion”. At the time, campaign groups such as the British Humanist Association claimed that this meant these people were “non-religious”. But is this necessarily the case? Might those who ticked “no religion” be closer to the 46 million adult “nones” in America, who the Pew Research Center described as “religious without religious affiliation”? Or might it be better to characterise these respondents as “a-religious”? This article discusses findings from qualitative research with 14- and 15-year-olds in England who similarly identify as having “no religion”. It describes these young people’s understandings and constructions of “religion”, made during photo-elicitation interviews, as well as their reasons for choosing to tick the “no religion” box in response to the religion question taken from the 2011 Census. Implications are drawn about concepts employed by researchers in the burgeoning field of nonreligion and secularity studies, as well as the methods used by researchers of youth and religion in the social sciences. In particular, questions are raised about value of survey and interview research that asks young people to choose particular self-identities or respond to statements of religious belief and value that may have little relevance to their lives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".