MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

“We Are Not Alone”: Historical Journey of the United Church of Canada's Response to Become an Intercultural Church

2011· article· en· W1508118712 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hyuk Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Mission · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupFaithSociologyDiversity (politics)Gender studiesUnit (ring theory)Cultural diversityLocal churchBlack churchPolitical scienceLawEthnologyTheologyAfrican americanPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The 39th General Council of the United Church of Canada (2006) declared that the “church must be intercultural.” The Ethnic Ministries Unit of the General Council proposed a vision for the church “where there is mutually respectful diversity and full and equitable participation of all Aboriginal, Francophone, ethnic minority, and ethnic majority constituencies in the total life, mission, and practices of the whole church”. 1 The vision of the church is that all people, regardless of their racial backgrounds, be invited to participate equally in the building of mutual relations in its life and work. The proposal is not the first in the history of the United Church of Canada (UCC) with the intention of improving meaningful relations among peoples of different cultural heritages. Many of the proposals presented over the years by various committees related to concerns raised by diverse ethnic communities within the church and intended to contribute toward building an inclusive faith community will be explored in this paper.

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)0.006
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0590.022
Scholarly communication0.0150.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of MissionSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207