Prophets, policy-makers and advocates: The World Council of Churches and institutional environmental ethics, 1991-2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Council of Churches (WCC) addresses environmental issues in three modes in its institutional work as a religious non-governmental organization: in the prophetic mode, in the public policy expert mode and in the mode of an advocate. If one is to understand the WCC’s commitment to environmental issues, this three-tiered hermeneutic is necessary so that its complex institutional aims are represented accurately. Moreover, this hermeneutic also aids in sketching the WCC’s larger ethical commitments as a Christian body and as a consultative religious non-governmental organization within the United Nations. This paper affords a more complete vision than many scholars have offered in terms of how religious NGOs approach extraordinarily complex ethical issues in the world today. Le Conseil oecuménique des Églises (COE) s’adresse aux questions environnementales en trois modes dans son travail institutionnel comme organisation non-gouvernementale religieuse : le mode prophétique, le mode d’expert en affaires publiques, et le mode d’un avocat. Si on veut comprendre l’engagement du COE aux problèmes environnementaux, cet herméneutique à trois gradins est necessaire pour que ses objectifs institutionnels complexes soient representés fidèlement. D’ailleurs, cet herméneutique aide aussi à esquisser les engagements moraux plus grands du COE comme organisme chrétien et comme organisation non-gouvernementale religieuse au sein de l’Organisation des nations unies. La communication présente permet une vision plus complète que celles offertes par plusieurs savants en ce qui concerne la manière dans laquelle les ONG religieuses abordent des questions morales extrêmement complexes du monde d’aujourd’hui.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".