MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398293939 · doi:10.1080/13617672.2024.2358582

Evangelical Christians score higher than non-evangelicals on public, but not on private, commitments to morality

2024· article· en· W4398293939 on OpenAlexaff
Brian P. O’Connor, Paul K. Lutz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Beliefs and Values · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoralityReligious studiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophySocial psychologyTheologyPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Are distinctly elevated, external, public commitments and displays of morality accompanied by distinctly elevated internal, private commitments to morality? A nationally representative U.S. dataset was used to help answer this question. Evangelical Christians (N = 411) scored higher than non-evangelicals (N = 942) on a measure of commitment to external, public displays of morality. However, the group differences in scores on a measure of internal, private commitments to morality were much smaller and were not statistically significant. Item response theory analyses indicated no measurement bias for the two groups, suggesting that the observed group difference and similarity on the measures of public and private morality commitments were real. Public and private commitments to morality are potentially independent at both the individual and group levels.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Beliefs and ValuesSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207