MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3126355510 · doi:10.1002/9781119583707.ch13

ECCLESIOLOGY AND THE VARIETIES OF ROMANTICISM IN AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY, 1825–1850

2021· other· en· W3126355510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brent S. Sirota

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcclesiologyRomanticismChristianityMaterialismQuarter (Canadian coin)BourgeoisieReligious studiesRomancePhilosophyHistoryTheologyEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceLawArt historyArtLiteratureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging alongside the religious radicalism of the New England transcendentalists in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, ecclesiology represented a wholly countervailing movement in American Christianity. This chapter considers the various manifestations of the ecclesiological tendency in American Christianity during the second quarter of the nineteenth century as an alternative romanticism in religious and cultural life. Ecclesiology shared with New England transcendentalism, and indeed the romantic movement as a whole, a core disaffection with the commercial and utilitarian values of the emergent bourgeois world of the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century northern Atlantic. Like transcendentalism, ecclesiology protested against an America that had grown acquisitive, materialistic and socially fragmented. Ecclesiology was imported into America as a means of differentiating the church from the myriad voluntary associations, clubs and charities that make up what we call ‘civil society.’

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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