MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890122428 · doi:10.7202/1050747ar

God & Government

2018· article· en· W2890122428 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Denis McKim

Bibliographic record

VenueOntario History · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpansiveChristianityState (computer science)EndowmentVirtuePolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Political economySociologyLawPublic administrationReligious studiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on a debate that raged in Upper Canada during the early and mid-nineteenth century over the degree to which civil authorities should assume responsibility for promoting societal virtue. Supporters of state-aided Christianity, many of whom were Tories, clashed with critics of close church-state ties, many of whom were Reformers. The catalyst for this conflict was the Clergy Reserves endowment. Drawing on works that situate British North American affairs in an expansive interpretive framework, this article maintains that the Upper Canadian debate over state-aided Christianity was subsumed within a larger conflict regarding the church-state relationship that originated in early modern England and played itself out across the North Atlantic World.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.231 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOntario HistorySame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207