MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE SPIRIT IN CREATION: A UNIFIED THEOLOGY OF GRACE AND CREATION CARE

2008· article· en· W2107917392 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZygon® · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Divinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctificationNeglectDimension (graph theory)TheologyPhilosophySection (typography)Systematic theologySociologyAestheticsReligious studiesComputer scienceMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay identifies one of the deeper theological sources of the tendency toward environmental neglect in evangelical and Pentecostal theology and proposes a theological vision that facilitates a vision of creation care as a dimension of Christian formation. The first section identifies, describes, and evaluates the traditional distinction between common and special grace or the natural and the supernatural orders as a theological foundation for environmental neglect in Pentecostal theology. The second and third sections propose that a pneumatological vision of grace based on a fundamental trinitarianism provides Pentecostals and other Christians with a way to overcome these stark dualisms and to attain a more unified and comprehensive vision of God's grace that is more conducive to creation care. The fourth section presents a case for seeing creation care as a pneumatological and proleptic participation in the eschaton and, as such, as a dimension of Christian formation and sanctification.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.480
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.301 · 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