MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082315969 · doi:10.3138/tjt.19.2.199

“The Ecological Bishop: John Zizioulas' Theology of Creation”

2003· article· en· W2082315969 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jaroslav Z. Skira

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcological crisisConsciousnessSociologyAsceticismPromotion (chess)Environmental ethicsTheologyHuman ecologyEpistemologyPhilosophyEcologyLawPolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

My study presents Metropolitan John Zizioulas' theology of creation as a response to what he terms the "ecological crisis" of our times, ''perhaps the number one problem facing the world-wide human community." He is very explicit in stating that the "ecological crisis is, at root, a spiritual issue .... [Both] historically and from the practical point of view it is impossible to address it without reference to religion and ethics?' His call for a renewed vision of the sacredness of creation is built upon the theological notion of communion, and is intrinsically related to the Church's mission and liturgicallife.4 In this respect, communion not only involves communion with the Trinity, other persons and churches, but it also involves being in communion with the rest of creation. He speaks of each person needing to become, in a liturgical way, a "priest of creation?' Zizioulas' call for a change in cultural consciousness is ultimately expressed in his promotion of what he terms an "ecological asceticism."

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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