Bibliographic record
Abstract
the Angus Reid Institute (ARI) released a poll in which respondents were asked if a religious group's presence was "benefitting" or "damaging" to Canada and Canadian society. 3 The ARI found that "only Evangelical Christianity is seen as more damaging than benefitting by every other self-identified religious group." 4 Joining Evangelicalism on the damaging side of the ledger were Catholicism and Islam. 5 However reductionistic (and socially irresponsible) such a question may have been, it is measuring something.Why are these three groups seen, in the main, to be damaging while the others are not?This paper will seek to answer this question and its implications for tolerance and a truly inclusive Whole Society.Before I do, however, I'll look at the related question "who or what is an evangelical?"because how evangelicals are understood is key to understanding why they are seen, along with other groups, as being socially damaging. Who or What Is an "Evangelical"?John G. Stackhouse Jr.'s "Defining 'Evangelical'" outlines two common scholarly ways of operationalizing, or identifying, evangelical Christians: as a movement and as a type. 6 Movement Movement evangelicalism usually means "individual[s] or corporate entit[ies] … belong[ing]to a historical movement known as 'evangelicalism'" 7 which is usually traced back to eighteenth century revivalist movements. 8 In what we now call Canada, evangelicalism was first "Victorian" evangelicalism-so named because it substantially coincided with the reign of Queen Victoria (1837-1901)-and it included Anglicans, Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists.These Victorian evangelical traditions constituted a kind of Protestant consensus in the nineteenth century. 9 While Victorian evangelicalism was shaped by, and oriented to, the British empire, the story of evangelicalism in Canada is the ongoing story of waves of ethnic, evangelical immigration and the denominations and congregations these new Canadians established, 1 A version of this article was presented as part of the conference "Our Whole Society: Finding Common Ground in a Time of Polarization" held at Martin Luther University College, Waterloo ON, May 7-9, 2023. 2
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".