A Discussion on Richard Allen’s The View from Murney Tower: Salem Bland, the Late Victorian Controversies, and the Search for a New Christianity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In my presentation, I want to begin with a few general comments about Richard Allen's The View from Murney Tower, move to highlight three particular strengths I believe the book to have, and conclude with two small criticisms. Before I do these things, since I share this panel with two eminent Canadian historians, 1 I want to note the perspective from which I approach this book. I teach at Queen's Theological College where my teaching falls into two areas: first, Practical Studies, where I teach courses in areas such as ministerial leadership; and, second, the History of Christianity, where I teach, among other things, a course in the History of The United Church of Canada. So, I have approached this book by Richard Allen from the perspective of the students I would teach in a History of the United Church course or a course in the broader area of Christianity in Canada. In other words, I have thought about this book in the context of teaching a class in which about three-quarters
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".