MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125431250 · doi:10.1177/0008429810373320

Taming Tehran: Evangelical Christians and the Iranian Threat to Israel

2010· article· en· W2125431250 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Faydra L. Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsWonderRhetoricZionismOrder (exchange)Political scienceReligious studiesLawTheologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hostile relations between Israel and Iran since the Iranian Revolution have only intensified since the 2005 election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His strong statements imagining a ‘‘world without Zionism’’ and threats to destroy Israel, combined with an active nuclear program, have many observers concerned about the Iranian threat to Israel. We can include American evangelical Christians among this group. But given the intensity of their eschatological emphasis, we might wonder why evangelical Christians have raised such a passionate voice concerning the Iranian threat to Israel, in what kinds of ways, and what it can tell us about contemporary evangelicalism and the relationship between religion and politics. This paper examines two cases of prominent, premillennialist, evangelical Christian Zionists and their different approaches to the Iranian threat to Israel, in order to understand not only why believers in a doomed world might engage in the political sphere, but also what kinds of rhetoric they use to make sense of that engagement.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.392 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207