MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556868195

KANGAROO CHURCH BIRTHING AND REPRODUCTION MODEL AMONG IMMIGRANTS: FIRST FILIPINO ALLIANCE CHURCH AS A CASE STUDY IN CANADIAN CONTEXT

2010· article· en· W1556868195 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sadiri Joy Tira

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Missiology English · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiasporaAllianceThrivingContext (archaeology)SociologyReproductionGlobeImmigrationEcclesiologyGender studiesLawHistoryPolitical scienceMedicineSocial scienceEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mission of the Church is to make healthy disciples of Jesus Christ of “all nations.” Many nations are scattered or dispersed around the globe and the Church of Jesus Christ must thrive among these Diaspora people. This Kangaroo Church Birthing and Reproduction model is a natural and healthy way of discipling and church birthing among Diaspora people. While it is written as a proposed working strategy paper to the First Filipino Alliance Church (FFAC) in Edmonton for church birthing among new Canadians, it is the writer’s hope that the concepts learned from the Kangaroo’s birthing and reproduction will be transferable to other congregations who have the intention of thriving among Diaspora people. It is important to provide definition of several key terms and state the assumptions at the outset. Discussions on the nature and mission of the Church and basis for church birthing and reproduction will be brief. It is assumed that the reader has a good understanding of ecclesiology. It is also assumed that the reader is familiar with classic church “planting” or birthing theories and practice (e.g. pioneering model, mother-daughter church birthing). Terms are defined as follows:

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Missiology EnglishSame topicPentecostalism and Christianity StudiesFrench-language works237,207