MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039062541 · doi:10.3149/jms.1102.145

Roman Catholic Religious Discourse about Manhood in Quebec: From 1900 to the Quiet Revolution (1960–1980)

2003· article· en· W2039062541 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean‐François Roussel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Men s Studies · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObediencePietyGender studiesSymbol (formal)SociologyMasculinityRelation (database)Action (physics)Religious studiesPolitical scienceLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines discourse about men in popular Roman Catholic literature between 1900 and 1960 in Quebec. From 1940 to 1960, particular attention was paid to the spiritual life of men, whose attitude toward piety was that it was women's—not men's—business. Catholic Action movements offered alternate models and masculine rituals for Christian life. Like the 19th and early 20th century Christian men's movements in the United States, these strategies attempted to counteract the “lack of manhood” in the churches. French Canadian movements, however, tried to attract men to the church by extolling the virtues of humble obedience. Partly influenced by feminism in the ‘60s, different pastoral issues surfaced in relation to men, and the older movements declined. While men's movements previously had recourse to symbol and ritual, symbolic activity declined in favor of productive activities. This raises the issue of the place of symbolism in the construction of contemporary masculinities.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Men s StudiesSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207