Promoting the Common Good Together: Catholics and Ecumenical Lobbying in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the public-policy lobbying undertaken by Canadian Catholics involves not the threat of their "block voting" but rather collaboration with ecumenical and/or interfaith partners who discern and promote the common good together either because they have found this approach particularly effective or because they believe that their Christian faith demands such joint action.The three presenters treated various types of joint public-policy initiatives involving Canadian Catholics.Catherine Clifford, a Roman Catholic member of the Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in Canada, pointed out the social and ecclesial context for, and the significance of, the 1998 A-RC joint statement "On the Way Together: A People Created for the Common Good."Prepared in an effort to receive into the Canadian context the 1994 ARCIC document Life in Christ: Morals, Communion and the Church, the statement proposed as guides for participation in Canadian society ten principles rooted in the common heritage of Anglican and Roman Catholic social teaching-a heritage discerned through joint study of the relevant documents of the two churches.Designed in both language and length to be accessible to parishioners and available with a study guide, the statement offers a theological rationale for broad participation in the formation of public policy in Canada and elsewhere.Clifford suggested that the joint statement's linking of the notion of communion to the common good-the connection it makes between the ecclesial vocation of Christians and the calling of the whole human communitymay well be its greatest contribution.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".