Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis argues that Christian doctrine does not condone environmental destruction (as many believe); rather, Christian doctrine promotes care for the Earth and supports a number of norms which are consistent with the requirements of sustainable development and useful for planning for sustainable development. Discussion begins with an explanation of the importance of norms and beliefs in planning, and proceeds to outline common criticisms of Christian norms and beliefs respecting the environment. These criticisms are considered valid to the extent that blame is placed on destructive practices which often characterize ill-formed social expressions of Christian norms and beliefs; however, these criticisms may be groundless in terms of a good understanding of Christian doctrine. This point provides a basis for examining Christian doctrine more closely, to see whether or not it condones destruction of the ecosphere. Christian doctrine, logical argument, and a review of relevant literature are used to respond to the above mentioned criticisms. Analysis shows that Christian doctrine provides a basis for caring for the Earth and that one should not dismiss Christianity because of misguided attitudes and actions of professed Christians. Nine ecological norms are derived from Christian doctrine. These norms are shown to be consistent with the requirements of sustainable development, and the findings of non-Christian scholars. Usefulness of these norms is demonstrated through a case-study evaluation of the ecological sustainability of Canada's Green Plan (GP). Applying Christian norms to the GP shows that the GP endorses some important environmental initiatives but is rooted in norms and beliefs which contradict each other and are inconsistent with the requirements of sustainable development. Christian norms therefore prove to be helpful in pointing out weaknesses in the GP. Coupled with the facts that Christian theology does not promote environmental destruction, and that Christian norms enjoy the support of non-Christian scholars, the conclusion is that Christianity has been overly criticized respecting the environment and that Christian norms can and should be used to plan for sustainable development.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".