Religion versus the Raj: The Salvation Army’s “Invasion” of British India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emerging as a mission in East London in 1865, the Salvation Army quickly became known for its militant and unconventional evangelism on the streets of British towns and cities. Convinced that unrepentant souls were headed for hell, Salvationists employed sensational tactics to attract the attention of the lower working classes. This strategy did not change when the Salvation Army sent a small party of missionaries to Bombay in 1882. They not only arrived in Indian dress but held noisy processions through the city’s streets. While these methods reflected the Salvation Army’s revivalist theology, they brought Salvationists into collision with the colonial authorities. Fearing that the Army’s aggressive and sensational evangelism would lead to religious rioting and reduce the religion of the ruling race to ridicule, the Bombay police arrested the Salvationists on several occasions between September 1882 and April 1883. Although the city’s British residents generally approved of the actions of the police, many Indians and missionaries came to the defence of the evangelical organization, believing that imperial officials had acted unjustly towards the Army’s missionaries. Bolstered by this support, Salvationists repeatedly defied colonial authority for the sake of religious liberty, demonstrating through their words and actions that the Salvation Army could be anything but a benefit to imperial stability and prestige on the subcontinent.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".