Bibliographic record
Abstract
On June 25, 1950, war broke out between North Korea and South Korea, a country which had been divided since 1945. The United Nation's Security Council branded the North Korea as aggressor and authorized the decisive action of armed intervention to repel the aggressor. Two weeks later, World Council of Churches approved, through the statement of its Central Committee held in Toronto, of the police action of the United Nation. The statement has been criticized from some of member churches of the World Council of Churches, and has been judged to have taken sides in the Cold War especially by member churches from socialist countries. This essay examined the Korean War controversy caused by the Toronto statement to understand how World Council of Churches and its member churches reacted to the Korean War in the ideological setting of the Cold War. Churches in Eastern Europe and China responded to the Toronto statement quickly. Joseph L. Hromadka, Dean of the Comenius Faculty in Prague, and Bishop Albert Bereczky of the Reformed Church in Hungary were among those had vigorously attacked the Toronto statement, saying that the World Council of Churches identified itself with one group of great powers. The Chinese Churches issued a statement saying that the Toronto statement distorted truth, and echoed the voice of the United States. The United Nations action in Korea, however, received the Federal Council of Churches of Christ and Catholic support in America because it was carried out legally under the United Nations. Most of the denominations took a position similar to that of the Federal Council of Churches. In this situation, World Council of Churches tried to answer the denunciations of Toronto statement in such a way as to insist that it had not identified itself with any bloc of nations against other nations! and had no such intention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.104 | 0.027 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".