Toward a Commons of religious experience: Theological education and the practice of theology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In North America denominational and church-sponsored universities continue to thrive. Yet many struggle to maintain their Christian identity and fulfill their mission amid an increasingly diverse student body. As recognizable expressions of how their religious sponsors carry out a sense of who they are and what they are called to be, Christian universities must be seen as Church practices. This is particularly so in how theology and religious studies are presented. How do university professors, academically oriented and committed to advancing scholarship in their discipline, respond to the requirements of good teaching and create the conditions for authentic learning in their students? A new educational context challenges us to experiment with pedagogies that engage students in the study of religion and theology in a way that makes room for the plurality of backgrounds and experiences they bring to the classroom, while honouring the integrity of the subject matter. Seeing the practice of theology as a dynamic dialogue with contemporary culture and the construction of new insights and innovative appreciation of ancient truths and realities allows the teacher to create a “commons of religious experience” where students encounter living traditions of faith and make sense of their own lives and the worlds they inhabit.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".