MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346516504 · doi:10.1080/01416200.2015.1117415

Catholic schooling, the concept of laity, and the future church

2016· article· en· W2346516504 on OpenAlexafffund
Graham P. McDonough

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Religious Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSociologyCorporate governanceAction (physics)EcclesiologyOrdinationPsychologyPedagogyLawPolitical scienceManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Catholic laity currently faces some concerns that are of importance to its future. The current decline and ageing of clergy affects the availability of sacraments and leadership. Moreover, the plurality of views among Catholics on ordination, ethical issues and Church governance suggests that controversy may accompany concurrent increased lay involvement. Finally, in recent years theorists have argued that the traditional establishment of clergy and laity as distinct categories unhelpfully sustains the laity in a passive role. So if the Catholic school wishes to respond to these challenges, it would be prudent to have some awareness of how Catholic school adolescents are currently establishing themselves within the Church. This paper uses semi-structured interviews with 16 Catholic high school students to focus on the questions of (1) what images and expectations adolescents have of the laity; and (2) how they respond to the fact of an ageing and declining clergy. These questions are coordinated so that conceptualising about the laity leads to indicating participants’ assumptions about the basis for any action in the Church, thus illuminating how one might think about Catholic education contributing to ecclesial structures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.034
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Religious EducationSame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207