MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387594062 · doi:10.1515/9780887553448-001

Foreword

2006· book-chapter· en· W4387594062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Harry Loewen

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Manitoba Press eBooks · 2006
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

hen the late Frank H. Epp first ran for political office in the 1970s, John A. Toews of the Mennonite Brethren Bible College in Winnipeg advised his friend not to become involved in politics.Toews said to me, "Frank can do more good as an educator and minister of the Gospel than in federal government."Epp was not elected to the halls of power-no doubt, for Toews, a blessing in disguise.Frank Epp represented a Russian-Mennonite tradition whose members favoured political involvement, whereas Toews still held to the view that Mennonites should not seek governmental office.As members of separate religious communities, Anabaptist-Mennonites were to model a Christian faith and life in a predominantly godless society.According to the earliest Anabaptist confession of faith, drawn up at Schleitheim in 1527, believers were to separate themselves from the world, including sinful pleasures, all forms of violence, and the holding of political office.While until fairly recently the principle of separation from the world remained an ideal for many Mennonites, from the very beginning of their history, Mennonites still acted politically.Persecuted for their beliefs and forced to flee from place to place, Mennonites negotiated settlement terms and "privileges" with regional rulers in order to exercise their faith, achieve social stability, and prosper economically.The very survival of Mennonites as a people was largely due to this ability to come to

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.132 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Manitoba Press eBooksSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207