MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533742543 · doi:10.1111/1467-9809.12003

“The Faith Society”? Quantifying Religious Belonging in <scp>E</scp>dwardian <scp>B</scp>ritain, 1901–1914

2013· article· en· W1533742543 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clive D. Field

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religious History · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSecularizationFaithScrutinyAttendanceChurch attendanceReligious studiesQuarter (Canadian coin)SociologyReligious pluralismPluralism (philosophy)HistoryLawPolitical scienceTheologyPhilosophyEpistemologyReligiosityArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historians disagree about how the Edwardian era fits into the jigsaw of secularisation in Britain. Was it a time of religious crisis (Keith Robbins, Hugh McLeod) or a faith society (Callum Brown)? This article subjects the debate to quantitative scrutiny by examining the available statistics of church attendance and church membership/affiliation for 1901–1914. A mixed picture is reported, with elements of sacralisation and secularisation co‐existing. Although churchgoing was already in relative and absolute decline, one‐quarter of adults (disproportionately women) still worshipped on any given Sunday and two‐fifths at least monthly. Moreover, hardly anybody failed to be reached by a rite of passage conducted on religious premises. Only 1 per cent professed no faith and just over one‐half had some reasonably regular and meaningful relationship with organised religion in terms of church membership or adherence. For children, perhaps nine‐tenths attended Sunday school, however briefly.

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)0.004
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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religious HistorySame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207