The conversation between public theology and missiology: A response to Sebastian Kim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper responds, from a North American perspective, to Sebastian Kim’s plenary address at the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society for Missiology on the relationship between public theology and missiology. The paper reviews the contribution of North American missiologists to the reflection on the public witness of the church, highlights the published contributions of Hunsberger, Leffel, Pieterse, Hunt, Okesson and Fensham, while recognizing the contribution of practitioners such as Kenney and Simpson. The paper proposes that missiologists can contribute to the conversation with public theologians on the themes of theologies of culture, the missionary dimension of all theology, the clarification of the meaning of “church”, “world” and “publics,” the theme of repentance, and offering an inspiring transformative vision for a flourishing creation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".