MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W30521377 · doi:10.1096/fj.201800440rr

Pentecostal Creative Ideas, Inspiring Vision, and Innovation in Ghana - A Bane of Pentecostal Continued Plausibility

2014· article· en· W30521377 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adadow Yidana, Mustapha Issahaku

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sociological Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstituto de Salud Carlos IIIMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadNational Space Biomedical Research Institute
KeywordsSociologyEntrepreneurshipEntrepreneurial spiritField (mathematics)Public relationsSocial scienceManagementMarketingEconomic growthEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth and increasing prominence of Pentecostal activities across Africa and Ghana in particular has generated interest across disciplines. Consequently, the study of religious organisations competing amongst themselves for clients, through the provision of social and spiritual services that society cherished a lot provides an insight into how religious leaders innovate to respond to social change. Using a field data collected in Tamale in the northern part of Ghana, this paper looks at how pastors in recent times have employed economic principles of innovation and entrepreneurship in their evangelisation drive to promote their interest on one hand and serve the interest of their clients on the other. The paper posits that modern day pastors are able to survive in the Pentecostal enterprise because they have been able to innovative both socially and spiritually in the running of their daily activities.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sociological ResearchSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207