MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213280975 · doi:10.1353/arr.2013.0003

Chapel of the Cross: The Introduction of Ecclesiology in Mississippi

2013· article· en· W3213280975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephen McNair

Bibliographic record

VenueArris · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcclesiologyChapelPrayerNaveWorshipHistoryEthosTheologyReligious studiesLawSociologyArchaeologyPhilosophyArt historyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecclesiology was embraced by Episcopalians in antebellum Mississippi under the leadership of Bishop William M. Green beginning in 1850. The architectural arrangement proposed by ecclesiologists, a physical demonstration of High Church principles, defined the social refinement of the planter class in Mississippi. The Chapel of the Cross (1850–1852) in Mannsdale was the first building constructed in Mississippi that followed an ethos established by High Churchmanship. The structure required a sizeable nave with a central aisle anda distinct and spacious chancel, both constructed in the Gothic style with only the necessary adornments. The arrangement of Episcopal church design in Mississippi originated in the sketches of Frank Wills, the primary architect of the New York Ecclesiological Society. As an Englishman and an Anglican, Wills was celebrated for spreading ecclesiology in the United States and Canada during the period of growth in the Episcopal Church prior to the Civil War. Ecclesiologists believed that the implementation of the Book of Common Prayer required an ecclesiologically “correct” house of worship. The Chapel of the Cross fulfilled the theological requirements of the Anglican prayer book while meeting the expectations of taste for affluent parishioners and established a precedent for ecclesiology in the region.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArrisSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207