MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239981097 · doi:10.5325/weslmethstud.8.1.0095

Review

2015· article· en· W4239981097 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martin Wellings

Bibliographic record

VenueWesley and Methodist Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectoryOrder (exchange)Listing (finance)Work (physics)Library scienceLawHistoryOperations researchManagementPolitical scienceComputer scienceEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dr Dorothy Graham published the definitive history of the Wesley Deaconess Order, Saved to Serve, a little over a decade ago. The present volume is a companion to that work, comprising an alphabetical directory of members of the Order, with a chronological listing of their appointments. As such, it will surely fulfil its author's intention of providing a tool for researchers into the lives and work of members of the Wesley Deaconess Order of the Methodist Church. In her brief introductory notes Dr Graham alerts users of the Directory to some of its limitations: ‘Sisters of the People’ who were not members of the Wesley Deaconess Order are not included here. Nor are Primitive and United Methodist Sisters who left their respective orders before Methodist Union in 1932. Nor are the later lives and careers of those who left the Order: many entries therefore end ‘resigned – other work’ or ‘resigned – married’, the latter a reminder of a rule which obtained until the 1960s. The Order ceased recruiting in 1978; the Directory ends in 1988 because the Conference decided in 1986 to create a Methodist Diaconal Order open to both women and men. This chronological cut-off inevitably means that deacons who joined the MDO from the WDO find their entries in the Directory terminated in 1988. This is a useful work of reference, and it will surely stimulate and enable further research into Methodist deaconesses.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.298
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.207 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWesley and Methodist StudiesSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207