MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2344188599

Catholic Perspectives on the Church: Towards a Common Vision

2015· article· en· W2344188599 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine E. Clifford

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America (Catholic Theological Society of America) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsSaint Paul University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceEpistemologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catherine Clifford introduced this first meeting of the new Interest Group devoted to Catholic responses to the most recent consensus statement of the World Council of Churches' Commission on Faith and Order, The Church: Towards a Common Vision (CTCV).Clifford noted that in 1983 the Board of the CTSA had established a Special Commission tasked to produce a research report on the first convergence text of the commission, Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry (BEM).That commission worked over a three year period under the leadership of Michael A. Fahey, S.J., and produced a careful study of the Lima document in Catholic Perspectives on Baptism, Eucharist, and Ministry.The present convergence text is the fruit of a process that began in the wake of the reception of the BEM document when it became apparent to the Faith and Order Commission that much of what prevented the churches from taking further steps towards full communion, even in light of significant agreement on questions of sacramental theology, was rooted in persistent divergence on matters of ecclesiology.From 1993 onward the commission worked to draft a series of consensus texts.The first two versions, The Nature and Purpose of the Church (1998) and later the Nature and Mission of the Church (2005), were qualified as "stages on the way to a common statement" and were circulated widely.In an effort to contribute to that consultation process, an Interest Group was established from 2003 to 2005 at Fahey's initiative, dedicating three years to the study of the 1998 document.A number of these papers were published in Ecumenical Trends.The present Interest Group is conscious of the CTSA's continuing ecumenical responsibility, and aims to promote further study and reception of the work of the Faith and Order Commission by Catholic scholars.Brian Flanagan's paper, "The Church: A Catholic View of a Common Vision" explored the historical development of CTCV with particular attention to its ecclesiological method.He noted that where the previous versions had included materials set aside in distinct "text boxes" -areas of continuing disagreement or requiring further studythe final version has fully integrated a discussion of these matters.Does the inclusion of this material detract from the convergence at the center of concern?Also noteworthy are the many footnotes in the document which draw from the previous work of Faith and Order and from many of the bi-lateral dialogue.This inclusion, Flanagan suggested, gives it the character of a harvesting or receiving text.He welcomed the precision in the use of "communion/koinonia" language.In response to earlier drafts, some had asked whether the term was not being asked to bear more meaning that was possible, or than the biblical witness might permit.Finally, Flanagan observed that CTCV has succeeded in setting the church more firmly in the context of the world, with mission as the driving force of its identity.This approach will surely resonate with the orientations of the Pope Francis' leadership of the Catholic Church in our day.Kristin Colberg spoke of how CTCV serves as an important resource for contemporary dialogue between Catholic and Reformed Churches in America, a conversation which includes representatives of the National Conference of Catholic

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.027
Scholarly communication0.0180.013
Open science0.0020.021
Research integrity0.0110.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America (Catholic Theological Society of America)→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→