MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2685015727

Sing A New Song! Theological Reflection Based in Hymn Text Writing: A Workshop

2017· dissertation· en· W2685015727 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Cultural and Social Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHymnReflection (computer programming)LiteratureTheologyArtPhilosophyComputer scienceProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scripture exhorts the faithful to “Sing a new song!” but for many worshipers their songs are still predominantly those of a bygone theological era in terms of the language and imagery with which both God and people are described. Since hymns have long been understood to be major contributors to the shaping of personal theologies, and with inclusivity a contemporary justice issue in the United Church of Canada, it seemed desirable to find a way to address this perceived problem. Based on the commonly accepted premise that one learns best by doing, and supported by the dialogic adult learning strategies developed by educators Jane Vella and Patricia Cranton, a workshop in hymn-text writing for parishioners was designed and tested with ten volunteer participants. The purpose of this intervention was two-fold: to evaluate the structure and teaching efficacy of the workshop itself while teaching participants the basics of hymn construction, style and content, and to offer participants an opportunity for theological reflection and discovery. An open-ended, process theology approach was the underlying orientation; the researcher was interested to learn what types of transformative thinking or behaviours the participants might experience as a result of their hymn text writing and small-group discussions. The workshop was deemed a success, in that every participant produced a thoughtful, technically sound hymn and there was general agreement that it had been a positive experience. Weaknesses in the workshop design were identified and will be amended in future editions. Some type of transformative learning took place in each individual, with a range from primarily factual information to deeply spiritual insights. The long-term impact of the experience remains to be seen, but if only a general sense of empowerment through the new skill of hymn writing, and an increased awareness of hymns and their role in faith expression are the immediate results of the exercise, it was worthwhile. Although a few other hymn-text writing workshops have been published, this one breaks new ground by consciously adding the element of theological reflection. With some adaptation, it can be used by denominations outside the United 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.312 · 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