MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W361565070

The covenant connection : from federal theology to modern federalism

2000· book· en· W361565070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel J. Elazar, John Kincaid

Bibliographic record

VenueLexington Books · 2000
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovenantFederalismPluralism (philosophy)Political sciencePoliticsLawTheologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

chapter 1 Preface chapter 2 Introduction: From Biblical Covenant to Modern Federalism: The Federal Theology Bridge chapter 3 Covenant and Community in the Thought of Heinrich Bullinger chapter 4 Covenant and Federalism in the Politics of Althusius chapter 5 History, Humanity, and Federalism in the Theology and Ethics of Johannes Cocceius chapter 6 From Covenant of Grace to Tolerant Public Pluralism: The Dutch Calvinist Contribution chapter 7 Covenant Theology and the Development of Religious Liberty chapter 8 John Knox: The First of the Monarchomachs? chapter 9 The Covenant Concept in Scottish Theology and Politics chapter 10 Covenant, Crown, and Commons in Elizabethan Puritanism Literature chapter 11 Covenant Motifs in Seventeenth Century chapter 12 Covenant, Body Politic, and the Great Migration chapter 13 Liberty and Equality from a Communitarian Perspective chapter 14 Federalism and Covenant chapter 15 Covenant Language in Canada: Continuity and Change in Political Discourse chapter 16 The Covenant Traditions of Dutch Americans chapter 17 Appendix: Publications of the Covenant Workshops chapter 18 Index chapter 19 About the Contributors

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.025
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations38
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLexington BooksSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207