British Imperial Army Chaplaincies in the First World War: A Study and Theological Reflection on Multi-Religious Provision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British Empire in the First World War encompassed a cultural and religious diversity which allows the modern observer to draw lessons from its experience which will be relevant for today. The imperial chaplaincies of the First World War were both multi-denominational and multi-religious. This dissertation explores Anglican models of chaplaincy, and the many and varied models exercised by other denominations and religions. Whilst many previous studies have looked in detail at specific areas and/or religious traditions, this broader study considers the Army chaplaincies of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the West Indies, India, South Africa, and British East and West Africa. These are considered by religious groupings, namely Anglican, Non-Anglican (all other Protestant denominations), Roman Catholic, Jewish, and other World Religions. Having surveyed the experience of these imperial chaplaincies, this is considered in the light of theological literature on chaplaincy in a wide-ranging theological reflection on the diverse models of ministry practised by these First World War chaplains. Such material and reflections, it is argued, can inform the exercise of British Army chaplaincy in an increasingly pluralistic society. The study concludes that there is no one way of doing Army Chaplaincy, but many options which should be determined by context, personality, and the soldiers themselves. This study uses material from the past to illuminate the future, and to learn from those who went before us in the darkest of days. The chaplain’s most important task is to bring light into the darkness. This study shows how this was achieved in the First World War and how these precedents are relevant for today.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".