MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603920394 · doi:10.1177/000332861609800306

The Importance of Moral Authority: Reflections on Current Events in the Anglican Communion

2016· article· en· W2603920394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen K. Wondra

Bibliographic record

VenueAnglican Theological Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrent (fluid)PhilosophySociologyEnvironmental ethicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ELLEN K. WONDRA*On January 14, 2016, the Primates of the Anglican Communion announced that they had passed resolution requiring that for period of three years Episcopal Church no longer represent us on ecumenical and interfaith bodies, should not be appointed or elected to an internal standing committee and that while participating in the internal bodies of the Anglican Communion, they will not take part in decision making on any issues pertaining to doctrine or polity.* 1 action was taken in response to the Episcopal Church's 2015 decision that the sacrament of marriage is to be available to same-sex as well as opposite-sex couples.2 Notably, the resolution makes no mention of this subject. Rather, it is about doctrine and discipline, and who has what kind of authority to make determinations about both.A week after the meeting, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby said that the Primates had that the Episcopal Church not participate in the activities stipulated by the Primates,3 whose actions he clearly supports. In his address to the Church of England's General Synod, the Archbishop used the term to describe the Primates' actions, term used in the drafts of the still-unapproved Anglican Covenant.4 Further, Archbishop Welby has said, This decision binds the Primates as group, but not any Province or other Instrument of Communion. It is powerful and morally forceful guideline.5At the beginning of the April 2016 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, Archbishop Welby gave report on the Primates' meeting, in which he said that the Primates' gathering had to balance three things, freedom, order and human flourishing. He specifically rejected the idea that the Primates had imposed sanctions or suspension, while also indicating that could be expected for any province that promotes its own autonomy over that of the catholic interdependence and mutual accountability of others.6 He noted that no of communion can legally bind the actions of any other, while also noting that the 1988 Lambeth Conference had passed resolution stating that the Primates have an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters, such that the Primates are a key to growth of interdependence within the Communion.' Archbishop reported that he had fulfilled his responsibility as an instrument of communion, which included asking Episcopal Church of interfaith or ecumenical bodies ... whose appointment he controls, to stand down, and they have done so.8 Archbishop has also appointed the Task Group for which the Primates called.At the end of its meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council passed resolution saying:The Anglican Consultative Council1. receives the formal report of the Archbishop of Canterbury to ACC 16 on the Primates' Gathering and Meeting of January 2016; and2. affirms the commitment of the Primates of the Anglican Communion to walk together; and3. commits to continue to seek appropriate ways for the provinces of the Anglican Communion to walk together with each other and with the Primates and other Instruments of Communion.9When asked what this resolution meant for the the Primates had called for, Archbishop Welby said, The consequences stand.10 Episcopal Church representatives to the ACC said that beyond [the Archbishop's] report, ACC members seemed to have little energy for answering the primates' call for consequences, for discussing disagreements over human sexuality, or for taking up the call of Anglican Communion Secretary-General Josiah Idowu-Fearon to pursue the Anglican Covenant. Yesterday [April 18, 2016], in fact, resolution that sought to pursue further consequences against Episcopal Church was withdrawn just before it was scheduled for debate.* 11In other words, three of the four instruments of communion of the Anglican Communion12 have now acted in response to the actions of the Episcopal Church, and indicated that similar may follow from possible actions of the General Synods of the Anglican Church of Canada (to be held in July 2016), the Scottish Episcopal Church (to be held in 2017), and any others that may make decisions similar to those of the Episcopal Church. …

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0590.064
Scholarly communication0.0270.012
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0110.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnglican Theological ReviewSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207