Article Religious Discourse in Nineteenth-century Ontario:Work,Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract:MaxWeber’s ethos of work was not an integral part of the pre-industrial cul-ture of Ontario. It had to be inculcated to encourage the formation of a culture condu-cive to the industrial era. This article examines the formative role of religious discourse in fostering just such a work ethic by considering sermons, diaries, manuscripts, and other publications preserved in the archives of Anglican, Presbyterian, and United (Methodist) churches. It also analyzes denominational literature, which played an impor-tant role in shaping the popular culture in an industrializing Ontario (1885–1910). Alter-native voices, which challenged the nascent ethos of industrialization, are also examined. This article finds that values promoting an emerging industrial order were prominent in sermons of the era, which often dealt with issues of social control, justification of social inequities, and the development of an appropriate work ethic. Résume ́:Cetarticle examine le rôle formateurque joue la religion a ̀ favoriserunenouvelle éthique du travail propice au nouvel ordre capitaliste industriel en émergence. L’éthos de travail de Max Weber ne faisait pas partie intégrante de la culture préindustrielle de l’Ontario. Il a fallu qu’il soit enseigne ́ pour encourager la formation d’une culture propice à l’ère industrielle. Dans le cadre de cet article sont examinés des sermons, des journaux, des manuscrits et des publications préservés dans les archives des églises anglicanes, presby-tériennes, et méthodistes. Y est analysée également une littérature confessionnelle qui a joue ́ un rôle important dans la formation de la culture populaire de l’Ontario industrialisée (1885–1910). Aumême temps sont examinées les voix alternatives qui critiquent l’idéologie émergente de l’industrialisation. L’articlemontre que la promotion des valeurs promotrices
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".