MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1573467222 · doi:10.2307/3341846

Protestantism and Capitalism: The Mechanisms of Influence

2003· article· en· W1573467222 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Economy and Marxism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapitalismProtestant work ethicProtestantismArgument (complex analysis)DoctrineSociologyCriticismPhilosophyEpistemologyDutyNeoclassical economicsPositive economicsLawEconomicsTheologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arguably, the most important single work in classical sociology is Max Weber's thesis on how Protestantism makes its impact on capitalism. Cohen's argument is that Protestantism affects capitalism in several different ways. Each is linked as a separate mechanism of influence, and may therefore be assessed separately. Weber himself stated or suggested several possible mechanisms of influence. Protestantism gave the spirit of capitalism its duty to profit and thus helped to legitimate capitalism. Its religious asceticism also produced personalities well-suited for work discipline. Finally, the new turn in Christian doctrine contributed to the quest to prove one's salvation, because God's favor could be shown through business success.Cohen's argument is that some of these processes worked as Weber indicated and others did not. This makes a blanket assessment of his famous thesis inappropriate. The Weber thesis has been difficult to prove or disprove because the refutation of some suggested mechanisms still leaves others viable. Only a comprehensive testing of all of Weber's sub-hypotheses can provide a proper assessment of his work. By simultaneously examining these sub-texts, the author pulls together Weber's arguments and points of criticism. The book juxtaposes historical evidence pro and con.Cohen revisits, reexamines, and tests the classic Weberian thesis that the beliefs and presuppositions of the English Puritans, rather than the forces of economic determinism, ushered in the era of modern capitalism. He divides Weber's single argument into two main mechanisms of influence: one behavioral, confined to which Puritan tenets in particular affected a believer's economic activity; the other, a more prevalent and far-reaching cultural mechanism, which became part of the mainstream. By taking advantage of present day information, including recently discovered diaries of two seventeenth-century Puritan merchants, Cohen's text sums up many years of argument in the journal literature. The book will find a place in a wide range of courses, from sociology of religion, sociological theory, social economics, political science, to European history.Jere Cohen, a sociologist at the University of Maryland in Baltimore County, is the author of numerous journal articles, many of them also dealing with Max Weber and his Protestant Ethic thesis.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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