Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: History reveals that inter-religious dialogue does not come naturally. Yet it is so crucial to creating a peaceful world. If inter-religious dialogue is to flourish, then participants must be educated for it. At its best, inter-religious education involves an experience of “thin places” that arises from exploring ultimate truths in the presence of the religious other. It also requires the development of “thick religiosity,” that is, knowledge of sacred texts and the play of interpretations; commitment to the communal and transformative character of religion; awareness of the historical and cultural contexts in which the tradition originated and developed; sensitivity to the rich panoply of folk traditions, rituals, art, music, and devotions in which religion has been celebrated and communicated; and attentiveness to the contemplative dimension of life. Thick religiosity, in other words, is a “textured particularism” that forms persons in a religious identity that is simultaneously rooted and adaptive, assured and ambiguous—that is, an identity strong and supple enough to contribute to a responsible pluralism. Conversation between religious others with a thick religiosity is the threshold to thin places.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".