Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three core Anabaptist streams emerged out of the Anabaptist movement in Europe in the 1520s—the Mennonites, the Hutterites, and the Amish. These groups experienced horrible religious persecution in Europe and members of each group were forced to immigrate to other areas of Europe, and eventually to North America. Despite persecution and the relatively small number of Anabaptists from each group that arrived in North America, these three countercultural groups have seen incredible growth in North America. The overall growth within each of these streams is also surprising due to the beliefs and practices that many Anabaptists adhere to, which tend to be counter to broader cultural streams of individualism, consumer capitalism, and nationalism in the United States and Canada. Their time in North America has also engendered great diversity within each of the three groups in terms of beliefs, practices, and daily life. This diversity makes it difficult to generalize and describe these groups. However, within these three Anabaptist streams many communities have managed to cling to core Anabaptist values, such as separation from the world, strict observance of Jesus’ teachings, and living in Christian community according to the New Testament. The following article provides a brief account of some of the similarities and differences of these three groups and how these core Anabaptist values have come to be expressed in their daily lives. After briefly retracing the history of the development of Anabaptism in Europe, this article explores some of the core beliefs and practices of Mennonites, Hutterites, and Amish.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".