Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latin America is different from almost all other regions in that neither British colonialism nor the widespread diffusion of the English language has been a major factor in the development of the Anglican church. Anglicanism in Ireland and Australia has been confronted by a strong and cohesive Catholic culture, but in both cases the Anglican church has traditionally been part of the ‘establishment’. Trinidad and Quebec are areas with Catholic majorities which pre-date British rule, but the Anglican church gained prestige once the British took over. Anglicanism in Latin America is numerically weak, even insignificant. According to Anglican statistics, the Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil has 103,021 members (out of a population of about 150 million). The Province of the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Peru) has 22,490 members. Episcopal membership in Central America (from Mexico to Ecuador) amounts to perhaps 40,000. Protestants in an overwhelmingly Catholic culture have traditionally faced problems of state hostility. For some Anglicans, particularly from the Anglo-Catholic tradition, there has also been a reluctance to proselytise in a Catholic country. The 1910 Edinburgh conference on world mission excluded Protestant work in Latin America on these grounds, though it was recognised by the International Missionary Council of Jerusalem in 1928. Anglican work began primarily as a pastoral initiative for British (and later American) expatriates. But it was not confined to expatriates. The South American Missionary Society combined concern for English-speaking people with a missionary zeal to reach the Native American (Indian) peoples.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.017 |
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".