Factors Influencing Church Choice: An Exploration of Responses from New Attendees at Growing Canadian Mainline Churches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seventy new attendees of growing Mainline Protestant churches in Canada agreed to be interviewed regarding what attracted them to, and kept them at, their current congregation. A variety of responses revealed that, in part, the new attendees were drawn to their Mainline Protestant church by aspects of Conservative Protestant theology. Contemporary theories of group membership are used to explore the links between Conservative Protestant theology, group cohesion, and, to a lesser extent, church growth. Soixante-dix nouveaux participants provenant d'une église protestante traditionnelle au Canada en croissance ont accepté d'être interviewés au sujet des caractéristiques qui les ont attirés et qui les ont gardés à leur congrégation actuelle. Une variété de réponses a démontré que, en partie, les nouveaux participants ont été attirés par leur église protestante traditionnelle par les aspects de la théologie protestante conservatrice. Les théories contemporaines de l'appartenance au groupe sont utilisées pour explorer les liens entre la théologie protestante conservatrice, la cohésion du groupe, et dans une moindre mesure, la croissance de l'église.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".