Modernity and the Dilemma of North American Anglican Identities, 1880-1950
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There seem to be two different theses or lines of argument, neither of them very clearly developed or succinctly stated, that are interwoven if not confused within this reworked doctoral dissertation from Queen's University in Canada. One is that most leaders of North American Anglicanism, at least in the period covered by this book, have generally failed to welcome or embrace or even understand an amorphous construct that William H. Katerberg calls “modernity.” The other thesis is that the major leaders and historians of North American Anglicanism, within the period of time covered, have gradually fashioned what he calls “the myth of Anglican comprehensiveness” as a clever way to explain and cover up the paradoxes and inconsistencies that exist within Anglicanism. The author, of Dutch Reformed background, sees himself as standing over against this myth, which he seeks to expose and debunk. The problem with Katerberg's first thesis is that “modernity,” a term that appears on almost every page, is not defined and seems to mean virtually any new development that comes along. “Modernity” is the key word in his title, and he believes Anglicanism consistently failed to meet its challenges, but he only gives examples that are far too broad to constitute grounds upon which a demonstrable thesis could be built.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".