MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Presbyterianism in the United States and Canada in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries

2019· reference-entry· en· W2974141919 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bradley J. Longfield

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheological seminaryTheologyConfessionalCovenantProtestantismReligious studiesHistoryPolitical scienceLawPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter traces the history of Presbyterians in the United States and Canada from the turn of the twentieth century to the early twenty-first century. It considers the predecessor denominations to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) as well as the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, ECO (Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians), Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and the Presbyterian Church in Canada, among others. It investigates theological, liturgical, missional, and educational developments in these denominations and analyzes conflicts over biblical authority and interpretation, confessionalism, communism, civil rights, sexuality, marriage, ordination, race, and the role of women in the church. The theological movements examined include confessional conservatism, evangelicalism, feminist theology, fundamentalism, liberalism, and neo-orthodoxy. Significant institutions noted include Erskine Seminary, Fuller Theological Seminary, Knox College, Princeton Theological Seminary, Union Theological Seminary in New York, Union Theological Seminary in Virginia, and Westminster Theological Seminary.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0190.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→