MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106220419 · doi:10.6000/1929-4409.2013.02.1

The Center Holds Quite Well: An Ethnographic Study of Social Structure and Control in Jehovah’s Witness Religious Organization

2013· article· en· W2106220419 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adam Trahan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Criminology and Sociology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWitnessSocial controlSociologyEthnographyChristianityLawEvangelismPower (physics)Social psychologyTheologySocial sciencePolitical sciencePsychologyAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Religion has long occupied a singularly prominent position among the various institutions of social control. Evidence suggests, however, that the American religious milieu has changed in recent decades. Several historically fringe religions have grown in terms of power and influence while traditionally dominant religious institutions have deteriorated. One of the fastest growing religious organizations is Jehovah’s Witness. Despite its increasingly powerful role in American society, we know very little about how Jehovah’s Witness operates as a system of social control. This paper presents the findings of an ethnographic study of the mechanisms with which Jehovah’s Witness’ construct and control deviance. The results demonstrate that Jehovah’s Witness operates according to the principles of functional systems theory. Witnesses are isolated from other social systems, which are deemed evil, and those who stray are shamed and labeled. Growth is maintained through careful evangelism processes that minimize threats to the organization and socialize core values to willing participants.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.323 · 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Criminology and SociologySame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207