Thinking through the Methodological and Theoretical Quandaries of Gender and Canadian Pentecostal History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, my research has centered on a series of biographies of women who were involved in the Pentecostal movement in Canada during the first half of the twentieth century. These women occupied multiple roles as evangelists, pastors, missionaries, teachers, musicians and writers. This paper concentrates on three issues of theory and methodology that present particular queries and quandaries for researchers of Pentecostal history. The first is a question of approach: “What does a gender history approach bring to the study of Pentecostalism and how is this different from women’s history?” The second is a question of archives : Given that the primary source material available about Canadian Pentecostal women (both unpublished and published) tends to be celebratory, what can be gained from regarding these commemorative texts when they clearly are not unmediated sources? The third is a question of audience : what does a study of women in the Pentecostal movement bring to conversations within Pentecostal faith communities in Canada and also to conversations among academic historians of religion in Canada? Is there a place for building bridges between these two communities?
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".