Footprints of the missionary: the road of General Conference Mennonites in Oklahoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General Conference Mennonites in the United States are prevalent in the states of Pennsylvania on the east coast, and in Kansas on the central plains. The state of Oklahoma too has its share of the denomination as well. These congregations, though not as numerous as in other states, made their mark in the Sooner State. The Mennonite voice in Oklahoma reflected their efforts to provide for those in need as well as to further the faith through missions work. From their arrival to America, to the missions started by Samuel S. Haury and Heinrich Richert Voth, these Mennonites remained steadfast to their faith and continue to reside a strong presence in the state. This thesis displays how important and contributory the General Conference Mennonites are in the state of Oklahoma. By equating the theological adherence to mission work and how it manifested overtime, this history evaluates the extent to which the denomination engaged to help the needy, and in so doing, these Mennonites cemented their place in the state. Their arrival to America and Oklahoma, their work with Indian tribes, church planting, relief efforts, and continuation are expressed in the work.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".