Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In view of current challenges in the Brazilian public sphere, discussion on the presence of crucifixes in courthouses in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, as well as on the activities of evangélico congressmen, this article offers a first overview of the reflection on a public theology in Brazil. It presents four lines of thought in the emerging Brazilian discussion, starting in 2001 and getting new energy with the creation of the Global Network of Public Theology in 2007. The first tendency focuses on the academic citizenship of theology, the second seeks to recover a liberal Protestant tradition in contrast to the dominant fundamentalisms, while the third, situated in Latin American left-wing evangelicalism, promotes a dialogue with post-metaphysical and post-secular thinkers, namely Jürgen Habermas. The fourth tendency is being presented more at large, a public theology as theology of citizenship, stemming from Hugo Assmann, incorporating central elements of liberation theology and theological assets from the Lutheran tradition. Finally, the article seeks to show the pertinence and potential of a public theology in Brazil—both with boldness and humility. Underlying is the constant question, what is public theology? The article seeks to answer it, but not with a clear-cut and uniform definition. Rather, it explores opportunities, reviewing concrete challenges and current trends, and tries to argue why a public theology is relevant to and fruitful for the Brazilian context—and probably beyond it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".