MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165283491 · doi:10.1177/00084298211012698

The Trump Prophecies and the Mobilization of Evangelical Voters

2021· article· en· W3165283491 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hanne Amanda Trangerud

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitetet i Oslo
KeywordsAllianceRhetorical questionPolitical scienceFraming (construction)Presidential electionVotingMobilizationPresidential systemDutyPolitical economyLawSociologyPoliticsArtHistoryLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Evangelical vote played a major role when Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. Although various factors may explain this result, we should not overlook the influence of the alliance that emerged between Trump and leading Evangelicals during the campaign. In this article, I present four books written before and after the election that illustrate how Trump prophecies and the portrayal of Trump as a national savior were used deliberately to convince conservative Christians that voting for him was their religious duty. With the help of framing theory, I analyze this rhetorical strategy of Trump’s allies, and show how it not only has influenced Christian voters, but also the president himself

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.021
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.338 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Religion/Sciences ReligieusesSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207