Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing recognition of humanity's pervasive destruction of the earth has not yet issued in significant reforms in practice or in the mindset that allows such destruction to continue. Theological interaction with ecological ideas has grown substantially in the last decade, but the degree of its impact on the practices of churches is still open to question. One means by which ecological sensitivity might be received Into the practices of churches is provided by contextual theologies, theologies able to articulate clearly the link between theological beliefs . and the life of church communities. Leonardo Boff, a leading Latin American theologian, has produced two books, as well as several articles and essays, on the relationship between ecology and theology in which he attempts to establish such a link between Christian beliefs about the world and the practices of churches. His method for establishing a dialogue between theology and ecology provides a helpful way to articulate the challenges that ecological destruction poses for churches and how those challenges can be a basis for transformative practices within churches. At the same time, his attempts to work out an ecological theology also reveal limitations in the use he makes of biblical thought and theological tradition for accomplishing this task. The primary task in this essay will be to explore the promise of his theological method for incorporating ecology into theological thought, as well as the limitations that result from his lack of nuance in the use of scriptural and theological traditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".