Canadian Protestant Overseas Missions to the Mid-Twentieth Century: American Influences, Interwar Changes, Long-Term Legacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Popular stereotypes of colonial-era missionaries have not readily faded even in the face of research that has directly challenged those stereotypes. As iconic images of missionary heroes began to disappear in the 1960s along with hackneyed missionary jokes and cartoons, a new stereotype emerged, one that presented the missionary as ‘part and parcel of the imperial project’.1 The resilience of this ‘new’ image, not only in the popular mind but also in the broad scholarly community, probably owes a good deal to the published discourses of the mission churches themselves. Proponents of missions showed a pragmatic tendency to speak favourably of imperial rule and sometimes even to urge its extension, notwithstanding individual missionaries’ private concerns about self-serving imperial policies and official or random acts of violence against colonized peoples. Several contributions in the present volume illustrate this pattern.2 Other contributors deal with missionaries who, while they worked in British imperial terrain, had ethnic or faith backgrounds that differentiated them from, and sometimes put them at odds with, the mainly elite Protestant men who determined colonial policies.3
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".