MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002627585 · doi:10.3138/tjt.19.1.41

Toward a Sacramental Theology for an Ecological Age

2003· article· en· W2002627585 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dorothy McDougall

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropocentrismEcological crisisHumanityEnlightenmentContext (archaeology)Natural (archaeology)Environmental ethicsSubject (documents)Environmental crisisEcologySociologyEpistemologyTheologyPhilosophyHistoryBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dimensions of the ecological crisis are global, both in geographical and physiological terms. Every comer of the world and every life structure is affected by ecological decline, much of which is a direct result of human activity. Many scholars propose that an anthropocentric bias which undergirds human activity and decision making is one of the main causes of the ecological crisis. But anthropocentrism did not arise out of a vacuum. The influence of post-Enlightenment thought and philosophy with its concentration on the human subject, coupled with developments in the human and natural sciences, marked a dramatic cultural shift by uncoupling humanity from its connection to and roots in nature. One of the negative results of this shift was an unrestrained exploitation of the natural world. Such a human-centred worldview is no longer defensible in today's context. I suggest that this imbalance in the study and practice of sacramental theology must be redressed. There are a number of reasons for this.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.128
Scholarly communication0.0170.013
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0040.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207