MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320077813 · doi:10.1163/15700658-bja10004

Pietism, the Brethren Movement, and the Globalization of Evangelical Christian Practice

2022· article· en· W4320077813 on OpenAlexafffund
Jean DeBernardi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Early Modern History · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMoravian Church and William Blake
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPietismIndigenousGermanReligious studiesMethodismEnlightenmentChinaTheologyHistoryPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper explores the influence of Pietism on the radical evangelical Christian movement known as the Open Brethren movement. In the 1830s, Anthony Norris Groves (1795–1853) met with German Lutheran missionary Karl Rhenius in India and praised his methods, which included support for indigenous Christian leaders and the independent churches that they led. Karl Gützlaff promoted similar methods in China and influenced wealthy London Brethren to found the China Evangelization Society (CES) in 1850. The CES founders also took the Moravians as a model, noting that a single congregation had launched a global missionary movement that had perpetuated itself from generation to generation. Although they had no formal relationship with the Moravian United Brethren, the Open Brethren knew of their work and that of Pietist institutions like the Francke Foundations both through personal contacts and publications. This paper utilizes the concept of “ensampling” to analyze the ways that Open Brethren founders modeled their work on practices that Pietist missionaries and philanthropists had developed in the long eighteenth century.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Early Modern HistorySame topicMoravian Church and William BlakeFrench-language works237,207