Interakce anabaptistických komunit v USA a Kanadě s většinovou společností
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of this bachelor thesis is the interaction of Anabaptist communities with the majority society. For this purpose the paper focuses on the three largest communities in the United States of America and Canada - the Old Order Amish, the Old Order Mennonites and the Hutterites. These communities have the same origin in the sixteenth century reformation but they differ in many aspects. This paper will address particularly the interaction with the society, as the communities are advocates of isolation from the corrupted outside world. However, complete isolation is unrealistic, therefore the thesis examines in what areas of life the interaction occurs and at what level. Those are the main questions that this thesis seeks to answer. For a better display of the interaction in different areas of life, the main part of the paper is divided into four chapters pursuant to the areas in which interaction occurs the most according to the author. In each chapter the given communities are compared. The results of the research are evaluated in the conclusion. They include the fact that the Hutterites live in the greatest physical isolation because they are isolated geographically. That allows them to loosen the rules inside the colonies, like for example with technology and education. The highest level...
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".