Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to further develop “centripetal and centrifugal mission,” an analogy conceived by mission theologians—for two reasons: (1) my new understanding of the meaning of centripetal, “seeking the center,” and centrifugal, “fleeing the center,” and (2) my twofold thesis that Solomon’s kingdom is the best exemplar of Israel’s centripetal mission and Jesus’ mission best demonstrates the New Testament ideal of balance between the centripetal essence of God’s biblical mission and the centrifugal necessity of going out to search for the lost. While I am not planning a new strategy for contemporary Christian mission, I encourage certain church action trends that go with the article’s conceptual framework. Centripetal comes from the Latin, centripetus, which means “center seeking” (“Centripetal” 1985:221). So, a centripetal force attracts objects inwardly toward the center. It is like your hand holding a string that is attached to a ball. You can twirl the ball around, but as long as it is attached to the string in your hand, it cannot sail off, but remains in orbit around the central force, your hand. Physics teachers explain: “Without this [centripetal] force, an object will simply continue moving in straight line motion” (“Centripetal Force—the Real Force” 2008:1). It is no longer seeking the center, so it goes off on its own. Unlike centripetal the Latin term, centrifuges, means “center fleeing:” centrifugal in English (“Centrifugal” 1985:221). Physicists call “centrifugal force” a fictional force (Bloomfield 1997:115) because it is simply “a lack of centripetal force” (“Centrifugal Force—the False Force” 2008:1).
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".