MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587419845 · doi:10.1558/jsrnc.v9i1.17758

Faith-Based Sustainability in Practice

2015· article· en· W2587419845 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne M. Moyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of Religion Nature and Culture · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityFaithSociologyParticipant observationWork (physics)Public relationsEnvironmental ethicsPolitical scienceKnowledge managementSocial scienceEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The enduring problems of poverty and environmental degradation demand new resources for advancing sustainability. Faith-based approaches and learning present two potential avenues. Archival research, interviews, and participant observation conducted with two faith-based organizations in Kenya engaged in sustainability work provide empirical evidence of how faith and sustainability can intersect in practice. A Rocha Kenya, a Christian conservation organization, focuses on bird and forest habitats and community conservation, and the Rural Service Programme delivers rural development programs for the Quaker church. Pro?les illustrate the interaction between the faith convictions of the organizations and their members, their organizational culture and structure, their work, and learning for sustainability that emerges. Findings reveal that their sustainability work is undergirded by integrated and holistic approaches and their faith-based motivations and values. Characteristics that contribute to learning include commitment to building and sharing knowledge, a strong management structure, and diversity within the organizational culture.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.045
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.015
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of Religion Nature and CultureSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207