Toward New Liturgical Texts with “Connected Indigeneity”: The Open Source Liturgy Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes David James Randolph, Ventures in Worship, 3 vols. (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1969, 1970, 1973). The 2001 Catholic Instruction, Liturgiam Authenticam, asserts the following about the Roman Rite: “Indeed, it may be affirmed that the Roman Rite is itself a precious example and an instrument of true inculturation [sic]. For the Roman Rite is marked by a signal capacity for assimilating into itself spoken and sung texts, gestures and rites derived from the customs and the genius of diverse nations and particular Churches—both Eastern and Western—into a harmonious unity that transcends the boundaries of any single region.” (Liturgiam Authenticam, par. 5 (2001): http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html (accessed October 26, 2009). I have not seen this argument made with this kind of specificity anywhere in writing. This is my observation based on conversations about current projects in indigenous liturgical development among many of my colleagues who are members of the Consultation on Common Texts, an ecumenical body comprised mostly of mainline and Catholic worship officials in the United States and Canada. For more information on how this process works in the development of Ubuntu Linux, see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment. These cores are available for viewing and use. Go to http://wikigbod.org/wiki, click the Release Candidates link on the left side of the page, and then select the type of liturgical text from the menu that appears. Additional informationNotes on contributorsTaylor W. Burton-EdwardsThe Rev. Taylor W. Burton-Edwards is the director of worship resources for the United Methodist Church.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".