Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consultation on Common Texts. Foreword by Gordon W. Lathrop: Introduction by Fred Kimball Graham; acknowledgements; full text of the Revised Common Lectionary (1992); new annotations, and 8 appendices. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Softcover edition; e-editions available for Kindle and Google Play.Lectionaries have played a role in week-by-week and season-by-season worship planning for centuries. Church musicians and clergy from many denominations depend on printed or electronic lectionaries to guide planning for worship. On-line versions of lectionaries-for practical or scholarly use-are maintained by several organizations. For example, the Anglican Church of Canada maintains own variant at http://thecommunity.anglican.ca/lectionary/; the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America provides the unaltered Revised Common Lectionary at http://www. elca.org/Growing-In-Faith/Worship/Lectionary.aspx; a listing of various editions of the Ordo Lectionum Missae ( OLM) is found at http://catholic-resources.org/ Lectionary/Editions.htm; a database of ancient Christian and Jewish lectionaries is under development at http://www.dstoekl.webs.com/thaleslectionary database.htm. One of the most accessible electronic versions of the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL) is that of Vanderbilt Divinity Library (http://lectionary. library.vanderbilt.edu/). As a measure of this lectionary's role in the 21st-century life of the church, have a look at the Frequently Asked Questions at that site and consider the visitor statistics for 2012: Page views: 4,182,540; Visits: 1,776,262; Unique Visitors: 635,005 (Google Analytics data courtesy of Anne C. Richardson, Digital Projects Librarian, Vanderbilt Divinity Library, via email correspondence of 29 ary 2013;Why an anniversary edition? The compilers, by producing an annotated edition of the RCL, sought to describe its origins and lineage, and to share details related to the deliberations and rationale that laid the foundation for this seminal work (xxv). Lathrop is Professor of Liturgy Emeritus, Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia, and Graham is Assistant Professor of Church Music Emeritus, Emmanuel College of Victoria University in the University of Toronto.The introduction contains an excellent survey of lectionaries in the history of worship and rich background on the principles and thought processes that informed the RCL and immediate predecessors. The aspirations of denominations for normative but non-mandatory sets of readings for Sunday services led to the adoption and adaptation of the OLM by many following 1969 publication. But the diversity of such adaptations seemed to undercut the idea of unity across denominations. Church leaders, recognizing the need to act ecumenically, chose to do so through the Consultation on Common Texts (CCT). Graham compellingly traces the activities of the CCT, with details of the actors, the challenges, and the evolving consensus that resulted in the Common Lectionary of 1983 (CL). The CL was then reviewed by congregations over a complete three-year cycle between 1987 and 1991. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.531 | 0.508 |
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".