MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250682714 · doi:10.4324/9781315270364-9

The limits of pan-Christian coalitions in Australia and Canada

2017· book-chapter· en· W4250682714 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyGenealogyPolitical scienceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In both Australia and Canada, the potential for pan-Christian conservative coalitions has existed. Conservative Catholics in both countries have been at the vanguard in mobilizing on particular issues like abortion, the status of women, and same-sex marriage. This chapter looks at the situation in Canada. There is not enough evidence to observe levels of Catholic political representation, but the Canadian case is instructive in showing that institutional factors can hamper the construction of Christian conservative coalitions in response to the political opportunity of secularization. Catholics are central in a reconstructive moral values coalition in Australia because of the size of the religious population, and splits within the Protestant Church. In addition to greater reliance on religious rhetoric, the Liberal–National coalition passed several pieces of legislation favoring conservative notions of the family and morals. In addition to increasing its religious rhetoric, Labor has made some incremental moves to be more accommodating toward religion in public policy.

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)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

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