MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315003900 · doi:10.5509/200679173

Responses to Rapid Social Change: Populist Religion in the Philippines

2006· article· en· W2315003900 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christl Kessler, Jürgen Rüland

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilippine History and Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial changePolitical scienceSociologyDevelopment economicsGender studiesEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Recent publications with titles such as “Christianity Re-Born: The Global Expansion of Evangelicalism in the Twentieth Century,”1 “The Next Christendom. The Coming of Global Christianity”2 and “Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture” 3 reflect the fact that Christianity in its Evangelical and Pentecostal/Charismatic version is gaining ground worldwide. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, these strands of Christianity accounted for 4.5 percent of all Christians in the mid-1970s and for 11.8 percent in 1995. The greatest increase in Pentecostals/Charismatics and, to a lesser extent, Evangelicals has taken place in Africa and Latin America. In Africa the percentage of Pentecostals/Charismatics rose from 4.8 percent of the population in the mid-1970s to 15.9 percent in 1995. The share of Evangelicals increased during the same period from 4.6 percent to 8.8 percent. The figures for Latin America are equally impressive: Pentecostals/ Charismatics multiplied from 4.4 percent in mid-1970 to 27.1 percent in 1995 and Evangelicals doubled from 3.4 to 7.6 percent. In Asia the success story is one of Pentecostal/Charismatic Christianity, as its share rose from 0.5 percent in the mid-1970s to 3.6 percent in 1995, while the Evangelicals remained virtually unchanged at 0.5 and 0.8 percent, respectively.4

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicPhilippine History and CultureFrench-language works237,207