MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093221294 · doi:10.3366/swc.2014.0094

China's ‘Christian General’ Feng Yuxiang, the Evangelist Jonathan Goforth and the Changde Revival of 1919

2014· article· en· W2093221294 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul P. Mariani

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in World Christianity · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChinese history and philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaChristianityTheologyIndigenousFront (military)HistoryAncient historyPrayerReligious studiesPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

General Feng Yuxiang (1882–1948), China's ‘Christian General’, had already been a Christian for about six years before he decided systematically to evangelise his troops while they were stationed in northern Henan. He was convinced that Christianity would save his men and, in the process, would save China. To this end, Feng invited the Canadian missionary Jonathan Goforth (1859–1936) to hold a remarkable series of revivals in the late summer of 1919. During these revivals, which were modelled on the work of the evangelist Charles Finney, Feng himself broke into prayer in front of his men, and eventually 507 of Feng's troops were baptised. By the time of Goforth's second visit to Feng – a little over a year later – over 5,000 of the 9,000-man brigade had been baptised. This study will rely on Goforth's journal from 1919, Feng's own diaries, and other material to see how Goforth and Feng worked together to Christianise a significant segment of Feng's army. So did the ‘Christian General’ ultimately form a ‘Christian Army’ or even an indigenous church? Did Goforth's revivals in Feng's army have any long-term effect? Was Feng a convinced Christian, a Chinese patriot or simply an opportunist? This study seeks to answer these questions. 1

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.291 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in World ChristianitySame topicChinese history and philosophyFrench-language works237,207