Johanna M. Selles, The World Student Christian Federation, 1895-1925: Motives, Methods, and Influential Women & Renate Howe, A Century of Influence: The Australian Student Christian Movement, 1896-1996
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Writing the history of student Christian movements is no easy task.Were they evangelical groups, focused on Bible study and missions, or were they communities of liberal Christians who valued social action more than personal piety or dogma?Were they elite associations of privileged students, supported by university administrators and financed by wealthy donors, or were they seedbeds of left-wing student radicalism?They were all of these things, depending on time and location.By definition, these student organizations were movements.They evolved in their beliefs, structures, and methods, in response to changing contexts at local, national and global levels.Consequently, any historian of a national student Christian movement (SCM) or of the World Student Christian Federation (WSCF) -the global body of SCM organizations -must wrestle with the fluidity and multifaceted nature of these groups.Such are the challenges facing Johanna Selles in her recent work on the WSCF, and Renate Howe in her history of the Australian SCM.On the whole, both authors face these challenges successfully.Johanna Selles' study focuses on the first thirty years of the WSCF, as it was transformed from an association of male Protestants committed to "the evangelisation of
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".