MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403594598 · doi:10.1007/s40839-024-00243-2

Assessing the influence of the home on sustaining churchgoing among young Baptists in Canada: a replication study

2024· article· en· W4403594598 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leslie J. Francis, Amy C. MacArthur, Ursula McKenna, Bruce G. Fawcett, D A Pyke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religious Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplication (statistics)PsychologyGerontologyBiologyMedicineVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper explores the influence of the home on sustaining churchgoing among young Baptists in Canada. Data provided by 126 young Baptists between the ages of 12 and 18 years attending a week-long youth mission and service programme demonstrated that neither personal factors (age and sex) nor psychological factors (extraversion, sensing, thinking, and emotionality) were statistically significant after taking parental church attendance into account. Moreover, these data confirmed fathers' attendance as a statistically significant factor augmenting the effect of mothers’ attendance. The implications of these findings are discussed for pastoral practice. Within the current social context, churches concerned with recruiting and retaining young members may need to concentrate on nurturing and resourcing Christian households (including fathers as well as mothers) in supporting the religious faith and practices of their children. The support and example of both mothers and fathers is important for boys and for girls across the teenage years.

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)0.007
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religious EducationSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207