MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094795116 · doi:10.3138/tjt.22.1.55

"The Glory ofGod Gives Life": Unmasking Subjugation for a Post-Colonial Missionary Ecclesiology in Canada

2006· article· en· W2094795116 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Charles J. Fensham

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcclesiologyColonialismSociologyGlobalizationSubversionCapitalismEnvironmental ethicsLawPolitical economyPoliticsPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Those who define what is acceptable within churches most often operate from the point of view of the dominant within the church subculture. Those who are different find themselves defined by those who dominate, control, exercise power and set the agenda. The dominated often seek to join dominance and to suppress their difference. This process is pernicious because it appears benign and because it never requires the dominant to reveal or examine assumptions. It reflects the process of one-way definition identified by Edward Said, another post-colonial theorist, in the relationship between the Western world and its perception of the Orient. There are many powerful challenges before churches in Canada in the twentyfirst century. I frame several issues here to propose the scope of post-colonial missionary ecclesiology. Challenges include external influences such as globalization, new technologies, environmental destruction, consumer capitalism and mass media; and internal struggles with hermeneutics, ethics, leadership and traditions of violence and domination.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.767

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0520.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicPentecostalism and Christianity StudiesFrench-language works237,207