MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1646842283

Mennonite COs and the United Church in Northern Aboriginal Communities

2007· article· en· W1646842283 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Leonard Doell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mennonite studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppealService (business)Military serviceCommonsWork (physics)House of CommonsLawHistoryPolitical scienceReligious studiesSociologyEngineeringPoliticsPhilosophyBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 29 May 1941 the Honorable James Gardiner, the Minister of the Department of National War Services, told the House of Commons that the first call-up of conscientious objectors (COs) for Alternative Service camps would begin in June. It was soon discovered that the Forestry Service in which men worked as lumberjacks, road builders and fire fighters did not appeal to all young Canadian Mennonite men, so other alternative forms of service were considered. A number found jobs in hospitals or related institutions that offered meaningful avenues of work and Christian service. Others, trained as teachers, spent their alternative service teaching in Northern Manitoba Aboriginal communities.1 In his book No Longer at Arms Length, Peter Penner writes that in Manitoba the United Church of Canada and the Mennonite Brethren (MB) joined hands for the last years of the World War II by providing places of service for a number of Mennonite Brethren men who were of mobilization age, but were prepared for alternative service. Penner goes on to say:

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0350.011
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mennonite studiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207