MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dissenting Traditions and Politics in the Anglophone World

2018· book· en· W2901912753 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gordon L. Heath

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2018
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissenting opinionProtestantismDissentPoliticsPolitical sciencePluralism (philosophy)ConcurrenceSecularizationDivergence (linguistics)Political economyNonconformityPolitical cultureAnti-AmericanismReligious studiesSociologyLawPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes the ‘acts of self-invention’ inherent in the public and political orientations of Protestant dissenting movements in anglophone countries in the twentieth century. It illustrates how civic dissenting Protestantism emerged over the century in nation-building among Afrikaners in South Africa, and the establishment of political parties, and the divergence of attitudes to the state in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the USA. Two major trends (among the enormous diversity of dissenting political attitudes) include: changes within culture, the ‘exogenous factors’ that remained relatively out of the control of the churches but which had a direct bearing on their growth or decline; and changes within D/dissent itself. The chapter places these trends within the broader trends of secularization and the enormous diversification of (d)issenting movements ‘from the margins’. It points to the tensions between (to use Hans Mol’s words) the ‘priestly’ and the ‘prophetic’ roles of dissenting Protestantism in the West.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207