MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988282983 · doi:10.1177/00084298090380030501

Political neoconservatism: A conundrum for Canadian evangelicals

2009· article· en· W1988282983 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Margie Patrick

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyEthnologyLawArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay examines the relationship between Canadian evangelicals and political neoconservatism. While some evangelicals support neoconservatism to advance a socially conservative platform, neoconservatism as it developed in Canada is unable to protect the traditional family as evangelicals desire, thereby creating a political conundrum for evangelicals. Dynamics within the evangelical community contribute to the dilemma, for key leaders espouse social and economic commitments that are not neoconservative. The conundrum also demonstrates the degree to which both Canadian neoconservatism and the Canadian “religious right” differ from their American counterparts. La relation entre les chrétiens évangéliques canadiens et le néoconservatisme politique est l’objet de cet article. Les chrétiens évangéliques appuient le néoconservatisme afin de promouvoir un programme social conservateur. Cependant, le néoconservatisme n’arrive pas à protéger la famille traditionnelle, contrairement au souhait des chrétiens évangéliques. Ce paradoxe politique est entretenu par une tension interne de la communauté évangélique, notamment par le fait que certains leaders ont des engagements socio-économiques qui ne cadrent pas avec le néoconservatisme. Ce paradoxe montre en quoi le néoconservatisme canadien et la droite religieuse canadienne diffèrent de leurs vis-à-dis états-uniens.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.334 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207