MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586546777 · doi:10.3138/tjt.3963

What Has the University of Toronto to Do with the Toronto School of Theology? A Postliberal Approach

2017· article· en· W2586546777 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
David Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Education and Schools
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostmodernismTypologySociologyMetaphorIdeologyModernityTheologyLate modernitySacred theologyPerspective (graphical)PhilosophyEpistemologySystematic theologyAnthropologyArtLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the relationship between the contemporary Western university and Christian theological studies from a postliberal perspective. First, it highlights the manner in which the Toronto School of Theology has construed theology within its new conjoint PhD program. Second, it analyzes Hans Frei's typology of modern theology, focusing on the variety of ways in which theology as such incorporates non-theological disciplines. Third, it locates theological studies as defined by the Toronto School of Theology within two categories that appear in Frei's typology. Fourth, it explores the nature of the contemporary Western university, both postmodern ideological trajectories and the functional residue of modernity. Finally, it argues that the metaphor of “conjoining” represents an apt proposal for the relationship of theology to the university, in particular the intellectual activity undertaken within the Toronto School of Theology and what occurs within the University of Toronto.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0190.058
Scholarly communication0.0160.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicReligious Education and SchoolsFrench-language works237,207