Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".