Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cold War can be understood as a time of multiple crises, when the fate of the world hung on the decisions of the few. Jason Stevens provides insight into this extended moment of crisis by focusing on the role that Christianity played in the production of U.S. culture during the period between the U.S. acceptance of Winston Churchill's “Iron Curtain” thesis and the first rounds of escalation of U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia (i.e., 1947–1965). Stevens centers his exploration of the period on the theme of innocence. This approach to spiritual history also allows for an interesting discussion of the concomitant concepts of guilt and sin. Stevens, assistant professor of English at Harvard, casts Reinhold Niebuhr and Billy Graham as his main protagonists for this project. Niebuhr is taken to be representative of a liberal influence on American culture, whereas Graham is held up as an example of an influential fundamentalist. Instead of organizing his study along fractures between the left and right sides of the political spectrum, Stevens's thematic focus allows him to explore areas of convergence and divergence between a number of positions presented in political rhetoric, theology, film, literature, and even psychology from the period. Niebuhr's and Graham's contributions are dealt with in-depth early in the monograph. Additionally, following on their role as protagonists, they often reappear in the pages of God-Fearing and Free to help situate other theoretical material and political events. In this manner, Stevens surmises that despite their critiques of each other's positions, Niebuhr and Graham shared a number of common sensitivities, inclusive of concerns over the underappreciated effects of sin on U.S. society and, near the end of the period under consideration, for civil rights. Of course, they expressed these concerns in different ways, but overall, according to Stevens's analysis, it is telling how, at this time, Niebuhr's liberalism and Graham's fundamentalism are more centrist than were liberalism and fundamentalism in the 1920s and 1930s. Those concerned with issues of religion and politics will note that such centrism embraces the necessity of both the state and its violent coercive means given the perceived realities of sin, guilt, innocence, and a fallen world.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".