MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407578130 · doi:10.3390/rel16020237

Habitus Formation Through Contemporary Worship Music in Two Church Cases: Implications for Intergenerational Worship

2025· article· en· W4407578130 on OpenAlexafffund
Laura J. Benjamins

Bibliographic record

VenueReligions · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Canadian institutionsRedeemer University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWorshipHabitusSociologyAestheticsArtAnthropologyPhilosophyTheologyEthnography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article draws upon doctoral case study data from two Protestant Christian churches to examine how contemporary worship music-making practices can reinforce and solidify the musical tastes, dispositions, and tendencies of particular demographics. Drawing upon sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus, this article examines the religious musical habitus of musicians in relation to contemporary music repertoire. For some churches, contemporary worship music-making practices may “disrupt” the habitus of a particular subset of a demographic due to their musical preferences and positioning, while contemporary repertoire may affirm the habitus of other, often “young” worshippers due to their musical preferences. Further, the research analyzes each church’s positioning within the overarching musical and theological fields in place. Case study data affirm the notion that Contemporary Worship Music is generationally based in the way it engages with the habitus, which provides implications for worship leaders and those making musical decisions within Christian church contexts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligionsSame topicPentecostalism and Christianity StudiesFrench-language works237,207