Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1964, when Henry F. May wrote “The Recovery of American Religious History,” the article that made religion respectable for historians, evangelicalism did not exist as a scholarly subject. What today we categorize as evangelicalism—among many things—May understood as revivalism. But the historiographical landscape changed dramatically in the 1970s, thanks in part to the election as president of Jimmy Carter, who self-identified as born-again, and the subsequent rise of the religious Right. Since 1980 the study of evangelicalism has become, as Jon Butler claimed in 1992, somewhat in disbelief, the “single most powerful … device … to explain the distinctive features of American society, culture, and identity.” The collection of essays in this book honors the writings and career of Mark A. Noll, the historian who arguably did as much as any scholar to put the history of evangelicalism on the academic map. The chapters represent the abiding fascination that historians have with born-again Protestantism. The essays capture the state of recent evangelical historiography in two ways. First, they include reflections from some of the most important interpreters of evangelicalism—Harry S. Stout on Puritanism, Catherine A. Breckus on the colonial awakenings, Butler on disestablishment at the American founding, Richard Carwardine on revivalism and antebellum social reform, George M. Marsden on fundamentalism, Edith L. Blumhofer on Pentecostalism, Grant Wacker on Billy Graham, and Darren Dochuk on Latin American evangelicalism. Second, the essays reflect the way that Noll supplemented the dominant narrative of American evangelicalism by keeping an eye on international networks and race (Marguerite Van Die on Canadian evangelicalism, Mark Hutchinson on institutions with global reach, Luke E. Harlow on debates over slavery, and Dennis C. Dickerson on the black church).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".