MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559629338 · doi:10.1111/cars.12125

Factors Influencing Church Choice: An Exploration of Responses from New Attendees at Growing Canadian Mainline Churches

2016· article· fr· W2559629338 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Millard Haskell, Stephanie Burgoyne, Kevin N. Flatt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsRedeemer UniversityWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtestantismHumanitiesEthnologyPolitical scienceArtSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207