MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231469627 · doi:10.1163/9789004443969_009

Ethnic Diversity and Congregational Vitality in Australia

2020· book-chapter· en· W4231469627 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruth Powell, Miriam Pepper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitalityMulticulturalismDiversity (politics)Ethnic groupWorshipContext (archaeology)Gender studiesQuarter (Canadian coin)SociologyPopulationCultural diversityDemographyGeographyPolitical scienceAnthropologyTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Australia is one of the most multicultural countries in the world, with more than a quarter of the population born overseas. In recent years there have been debates around the best approach to ethnic composition of churches in a context of migration and multiculturalism. Using data from 1,344 churches who participated in the 2016 National Church Life Survey, this paper explores the relationships between ethnic diversity (operationalised as diversity in the countries of birth of attenders) and congregational health and vitality, in terms of religiousness of the congregation, positive evaluation of worship services, bonding within the congregation, visionary leadership and innovativeness, the proportion of the congregation who are youth and young adults, the proportion who are newcomers to church, and growth in the size of the church. Ethnic diversity contributed positively to religiousness, the presence of young people and positive worship evaluation, and negatively to bonding. Analyses were also conducted separately for Anglican, Catholic, Uniting, Baptist and Lutheran churches, indicating that ethnic diversity is particularly important for understanding vitality in Catholic parishes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207