MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

For God, King, and Country: Nineteenth-Century Methodist Interpretations of the War of 1812

2014· article· en· W2536924724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James Tyler Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon Journal of Canadian Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethodismLoyaltySpanish Civil WarInterpretation (philosophy)World War IIPoliticsHistoryFirst world warOrder (exchange)Political scienceEconomic historyLawReligious studiesAncient historyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The War of 1812 almost ruined Episcopal Methodism in Upper Canada. During the War, the American itinerants were unable to travel in the land and, after the War, their detractors used their connection to America to undermine their influence in the loyal Province. This article offers two examples in order to highlight the ways in which the Methodists themselves used the war to prove their loyalty as well as their role in developing the land that would one day become Canada. The first example looks at how Methodists in the Reform party of the 1828 House of Assembly viewed their denomination’s role during and in the years following the War. The second example looks at the publication of two popular books in 1880 that defended the contribution American Methodists had made to the British war effort. These examples moved the issue of Methodist loyalty into the sphere of politics and public policy and showed how the ongoing interpretation of the War of 1812 continued to affect these Methodists throughout the nineteenth century.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.085
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207