MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414086667 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.23.2.118

“Ideals of Stability, Order and Fidelity”: The Love Dare Phenomenon, Convergence Culture, and the Marriage Movement

2011· article· en· W2414086667 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gillian Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainstreamPhenomenonFidelityOrder (exchange)SociologyGender studiesMovement (music)Convergence (economics)Social psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceAestheticsLawArtPhilosophyEngineeringEpistemologyBusinessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article explores the bestselling evangelical marital advice book, The Love Dare, which is based upon the top-selling independent movie of 2008, Fireproof. It describes how evangelicals are using traditional media and new media to influence mainstream culture in their quest to turn back the tide of rising divorce rates and secular sexual values. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have undergone a process of self-transformation and thousands have kept online journals detailing their attempts to rebuild their dissolving relationships using The Love Dare. This study examines both The Love Dare and the journals of its participants to analyze how churches are transmitting pro-marriage messages and the asymmetrical manner in which evangelical audiences are taking up these messages. It thus reveals a paradox at the heart of the pro-marriage movement between the promise of marital salvation and the reality of marital dissolution and discord.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.033
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207