MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057391408 · doi:10.3138/tjt.2155

Ministering with a High Doctrine of the Trinity in a Liberal Church

2014· article· en· W2057391408 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
P.W. Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrineTheme (computing)WitnessOpenness to experienceFaithSociologyPhilosophyEpistemologyLawPolitical scienceTheologyPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Evangelical renewal groups exist in varied form in several mainline Canadian churches. A conference recently held by one such group called on the author to address the theme of ministering with a high doctrine of the Trinity in a liberal church. This article is based on an oral address given at the conference and on further reflection on its themes. The author believes that understanding the complex nature and development of the doctrine of the Trinity is a crucial first step on the way to addressing more practical considerations. Attention is given to the New Testament witness and to the relationship between immanent and economic expressions of the doctrine. It is also important to understand that orthodox teaching about the Trinity is encumbered by “baggage” (both historical and contemporary) that may limit the openness of more liberal Christians to its significance. The article maintains that Christian spiritual experience is the basis of trinitarian faith and that the Trinity is integral to Christian faith and pastoral practice. Yoked with an open and respectful attitude to the convictions of others, ministering with the Trinity in a liberal Church can and should take a positive and confident shape.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0160.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207