MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051039929 · doi:10.1080/09699080802444850

“GOD, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT”: ELIZABETH STUART PHELPS'S CHRISTIAN SPIRITUALISM

2008· article· en· W2051039929 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roxanne Harde

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Writing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligious Studies and Spiritual Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpiritualismChristianityDoctrinePhilosophyReligious studiesLiteratureAestheticsArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phelps considers her engagement with spiritualism not as competing religious discourse but as a social spiritual movement through which she could reconsider her Christian world view. While Phelps rejected Calvinist doctrine, she identified herself as Christian to the end of her life, and the author argues that she drew from spiritualism the tools with which to build a reform platform and with which to renovate Christianity. Her continued preoccupation with supernatural phenomena might begin with her grandfather's recollections of his own poltergeist, but her repeated turnings to the spirit world offer both insight into cultural trends and avenues by which she engenders Christian reform. The author traces three trends in Phelps's spiritualist Christianity: those stories in which she explores the practices and manifestations of spiritualism, including seers, mediums, poltergeists and vengeful ghosts; the fiction in which she holds the veil between life and death firmly in place while she visits both sides of it; and, finally, those stories in which the only spirit manifestation is fully Christian.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.014
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s WritingSame topicReligious Studies and Spiritual PracticesFrench-language works237,207