MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229004263 · doi:10.3390/rel13050420

George Calling: A Rhetorical Analysis of Four Broadcast Sermons Preached by the Rev. George F. MacLeod from Govan in 1934

2022· article· en· W4229004263 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Blythe

Bibliographic record

VenueReligions · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityGeorge (robot)Rhetorical questionRevelationContext (archaeology)Formative assessmentRhetorical deviceLiteratureHistoryPhilosophyTheologyReligious studiesArtSociologyArt historyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

George F. MacLeod was one of the most significant Church leaders in twentieth-century Scotland. He advocated parish renewal and mission within the Church of Scotland and founded the Iona Community. His contributions to the Church received national and international recognition. His notable strengths included the quality and popularity of his preaching. Be this as it may, there has been little detailed and systematic analysis of his sermons. This article provides an in-depth rhetorical analysis of four of his sermons. These four sermons were delivered in 1934 from Govan and broadcast on the radio. These sermons were chosen because Govan was a particularly formative context for MacLeod, 1934 was a significant year, and his radio preaching reflected and extended his wider popularity. This analysis drawing of the rhetorical codes of homiletician John S. McClure explores the nature of MacLeod’s popular radio preaching in terms of how he used Scripture, language, expressed theology, and interacted with culture. It demonstrates that MacLeod’s preaching was kerygmatic, image-driven, realistic but hopeful, and dialectically portrayed aspects of culture as sources of divine revelation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligionsSame topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207