MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1150686950 · doi:10.1007/s13644-015-0228-z

The Political Attitudes and Activities of Missouri Synod Lutheran (LCMS) Clergy in 2001 and 2009: A Research Note

2015· article· en· W1150686950 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jeff Walz, Steve Montreal

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Religious Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConcordia University
KeywordsSynodPoliticsSociologyVariety (cybernetics)Religious studiesSurvey data collectionPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has explored Lutheran clergy and politics at various time points, though few studies have focused longitudinally on this significant religious tradition. Using Cooperative Clergy Survey data, this research note examines the theological and the political attitudes, beliefs, and activities of pastors in one branch of American Lutheranism, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS), in 2001 and 2009. The results suggest that LCMS clergy became more conservative, both theologically and politically, during this time. Moreover, LCMS clergy indicated higher levels of approval for a variety of political actions in 2009 than in 2001, as well as reporting higher levels of actual political involvement in 2008 than in 2000. A new breed of LCMS clergy may be emerging that is more comfortable engaging with the public square.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Religious ResearchSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207