MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143671744 · doi:10.1177/0022009407071629

Nazism and Christianity: Partners and Rivals? A Response to Richard Steigmann-Gall, The Holy Reich. Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945

2006· article· en· W2143671744 on OpenAlexaff
Doris L. Bergen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary History · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Theology, History, Judaism, Christianity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNazismChristianityProtestantismIdeologyReligious studiesAntisemitismGermanArgument (complex analysis)PhilosophyLawPolitical scienceTheologyJudaismPoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This response accepts Richard Steigmann-Gall's argument that nazism and Christianity were less sharply opposed than popular and much scholarly opinion have assumed. Personal ties, institutional links and ideological common ground connected nazism and Christianity, and many members of the nazi elite considered themselves to be devoted Christians. Steigmann-Gall makes a significant contribution by focusing on such ‘Christian nazis’, in contrast to the ‘nazi Christians’ that others have examined. But he could do more to clinch his case. By defining religion solely in terms of belief, he ignores important aspects of nazi–Christian co-existence: for example, the fact that Church membership remained extremely high in Germany throughout the nazi era. His assumption of an especially close nazi–Protestant nexus obscures the significant cooperation of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, by denying the existence of tensions between nazism and Christianity, he fails to consider the defensive posture of Church leaders, a stance that motivated much of their eager accommodation of National Socialism.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.017
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0270.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations8
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Contemporary HistorySame topicReligion, Theology, History, Judaism, ChristianityFrench-language works237,207