MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551670072 · doi:10.3138/tjt.4202j

Fifty Years and Learning: Developments in the Roman Catholic Church's Encounter with Religions

2016· article· en· W2551670072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Darren Dias

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCatholicism and Religious Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagisteriumRedactionRelation (database)TheologyHistory of religionsSection (typography)Church FathersCatholic theologyReligious studiesHoly SeeChristianityPhilosophySociologyClassicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article the author argues that the Roman Catholic Church does not have a firm theological position on other religions, as its engagement with them as partners in dialogue has emerged only since the Second Vatican Council. The article provides an overview of the Roman Catholic Church's theology and teachings on non-Christian religions, beginning with the council's shortest, but by no means least-significant, document, Nostra aetate. The author claims that an examination of Nostra aetate's redaction history, the text itself, and the text in relation to other conciliar texts, reveals an optimistic view of salvation and other religions. The author then traces further doctrinal developments in the magisterium of John Paul ii. The length of his papacy, coupled with his personal commitment to dialogue, resulted in significant developments and milestones. The teachings of Benedict xvi and Francis are briefly surveyed. A last section explores ever-evolving theologies and practices that shape the church's approach to other religions today: comparative theology, theologies of dialogue, and theologies of religion.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.040
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0010.015
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicCatholicism and Religious StudiesFrench-language works237,207