MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616833095 · doi:10.1163/15700747-03901005

Aimee Semple McPherson

2017· article· en· W2616833095 on OpenAlexaff
Linda M. Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenuePneuma · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipEpistemologyPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because so many people have contributed analyses of Aimee Semple McPherson’s significance, one might well ask what more there could possibly be to say. The purpose of this article is not to break new ground on McPherson herself, but rather to apply a gendered lens to the existing McPherson scholarship in order to suggest three ways to use theories from gender studies to think about Aimee Semple McPherson, worship, and the arts. These theories prove fruitful for the case of McPherson, and there is every reason to think it would be a useful exercise to apply similar approaches to our study of other pentecostal, charismatic, and revivalist leaders.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.795
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePneumaSame topicPentecostalism and Christianity StudiesFrench-language works237,207