MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W572931325 · doi:10.5860/choice.48-1547

Missionaries, indigenous peoples and cultural exchange

2010· article· en· W572931325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAustralian History and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousColonialismHistoryChristianityEthnologyPower (physics)AnthropologyGender studiesPeninsulaGermanAncient historySociologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reappraisals of Mission History: An Introduction Mother's Milk: Gender, Power & Anxiety on a South African Mission Station, 1839-1840 Natives Uncivilise Me: Missionaries & Interracial Intimacy in Early New Zealand Contested Conversions: Missionary Women's Religious Encounters in Early Colonial Uganda It is No Soft Job to be Performed: Missionaries & Imperial Manhood in Canada, 1880-1920 An Indigenous View of Missionaries: Arthur Wellington Clah & Missionaries on the North-west Coast of Canada The Promise of a Book: Missionaries & Native Evangelists in North-east India Translation Teams: Missionaries, Islanders, & the Reduction of Language in the Pacific Practising Christianity, Writing Anthropology: Missionary Anthropologists & their Informants Missionaries, Africans & the State in the Development of Education in Colonial Natal, 1836-1910 Colonial Agents: German Moravian Missionaries in the English-Speaking World A Matter of No Small Importance to the Colony: Moravian Missionaries on Cape York Peninsula, Queensland, 1891-1919 Mission Dormitories: Intergenerational Implications for Kalumburu & Balgo, Kimberley, Western Australia Bibliography Index.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChoice Reviews OnlineSame topicAustralian History and SocietyFrench-language works237,207