MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510937922 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.23.2.101

From ‘Televangelist’ to ‘Intervangelist’: The Emergence of the Streaming Video Preacher

2011· article· en· W2510937922 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Denis J. Bekkering

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedia, Religion, Digital Communication
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroadcasting (networking)ConventionNeologismMultimediaAdvertisingVideo gameMedia studiesWorld Wide WebSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceBusinessLawComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The present study begins by recovering the origins of the terms “televangelism” and “televangelist.” “Televangelism” first appeared in 1958 as the title of a proselytization project of the Southern Baptist Convention that combined dramatic television programs with efforts to engage viewers in person. “Televangelist” was introduced in 1975 to describe an emerging type of American television preacher, the most successful of whom built powerful parachurch organizations. The neologism “intervangelist” is then presented to label contemporary video preachers broadcasting online. A content analysis of video platforms on the site http://www.streamingfaith.com reveals a group of intervangelists who head established or aspiring megachurches. It is demonstrated that the information and opportunities for interaction surrounding the videos of these intervangelists provide their ministries with tools for gaining the attention and donations of viewers, as well as resources for attracting physical attendees to their churches.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.021
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations45
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicMedia, Religion, Digital CommunicationFrench-language works237,207