Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Movements called “charismatic” within Protestant and Catholic Christianity include renewal movements within established denominations, and independent churches and networks; all stress the availability of “charismata” or “gifts of the Holy Spirit.” The number of charismatics is estimated at 15 percent of the world's Christian population. The movement is related phenomenologically to Pentecostalism, but with some differences in theology and especially in social class, tone, and concerns. In the developed west, it has been characterized as simultaneously antimodern, modern, and postmodern. But charismatic Christianity is a global culture, with parallel developments and complex flows. The Protestant charismatic movement is examined in its origins, development and impact in this entry. It has become one of the few sectors of church growth in the west, albeit often by recycling existing churchgoers. But it also flourishes in contexts of generalized church growth such as West Africa and Latin America. The Catholic Charismatic Renewal is then examined in origins and global expansion, achievement of official recognition, and adaptation to Catholic distinctives. The global hub, Latin America, is treated in detail, and its appropriateness for the region's new “denominational” context. Regarding the future, a global perspective questions the most pessimistic forecasts, but also some optimistic evaluations of its potential.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".