MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925271410 · doi:10.1093/jcs/csz012

Ekklesia: Three Inquiries in Church and State. By Paul Christopher Johnson, Pamela E. Klassen, and Winnifred Fallers Sullivan

2019· article· en· W2925271410 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Leeman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Church and State · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsState (computer science)LegitimationPoliticsCollusionNarrativePower (physics)LawSociologyPolitical theologyHistoryClassicsPolitical scienceArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Popularly and academically, westerners often view the relationship between church and state as a story of striving toward separation and freedom. Ekklesia: Three Inquiries in Church and State works through three case studies in the Americas to provide a counter-narrative. It is not nearly that simple, says the book. Drawing on illustrations from Brazil, Canada, and the United States, authors Paul Christopher Johnson, Pamela E. Klassen, and Winnifred Fallers Sullivan argue that the “settler states” of North and South America offer “alternative patterns of conjoined religious and political power” (p. 12). Church and state may sometimes throw punches at each other. They might declare themselves independent. But they are in fact “joined at the hip” or “symbiotically joined twins” (pp. 4, 6). Each depends in some form or fashion on the other for its legitimation, its direction, and, most crucially, for the making and unmaking of a people. This “people” the authors call an ekklesia, a term whose history contains both political (the voting assemblies of ancient Greece) and religious (translated by the English New Testament as “churches”) antecedents. In that sense, it is an unexpectedly good term to capture the collusion of church and state.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.731

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Church and StateSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207