MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400864558 · doi:10.1080/10510974.2024.2379059

“You Are Not the Victim Here”: Conspirituality and the Framing of Evangelical Patriarchy as a Victim of #ChurchToo Disruption

2024· article· en· W4400864558 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunication Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatriarchyFraming (construction)SociologySocial psychologyPsychologyGender studiesCriminologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term “Church Too” not only echoes “#MeToo” but implies a rebuttal against American evangelicalism’s authoritative and longstanding argument of the church existing as a safe and divinized place and the churchgoer positioned within a secure environment – unable to be a part of a sexual assault experience. In other words, abuse happens in “Church Too.” In this piece, we argue that churches’ rhetorical responses to the #ChurchToo movement should be understood as part of evangelicalism’s ongoing perception of being under attack from feminism. They are, therefore, victims in the culture war, in which “ChurchToo” becomes yet another battle to be fought, with the church taking defense. Consequently, evangelicalism’s defense narratives use strategies of conspirituality, narratives of disruption, and the victimhood enthymeme. As a result, we argue scholars must consider these rhetorical strategies to understand how the ideology of victimhood is both deeply embedded and an exceedingly powerful vision of reality, within white American evangelicalism.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.360 · 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