Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is written from the perspective of a theologian in the global North with decades-long engagement with the “new” voices of the Global South. In this paper, I address questions that unfold differently in different contexts but that, ultimately, are shared by all concerning the future of life on planet Earth, the role of humanity in (mis)shaping it, and the shifting horizons of hope and faith. In looking for resources to illumine this divided and rapidly changing world, I focus in particular on Latin American decolonial thinking, less on the thinkers themselves in their own contexts with their own internal debates and more on points of reference for further theological and ethical dialogue. In particular, I wish to (1) sketch the historical context that gave birth to this movement; (2) note defining insights that resonate with liberation theological concerns in drawing new maps of the world and promising paths forward; (3) in particular, in light of expanding awareness of the epistemic violence at the heart of “modern” Eurocentric and American-centric projects for global order since the sixteenth century, point to new epistemological openings for hope and faith; and (4), in conclusion, insist that in historically unprecedented ways “religious” questions—and our responses to them—lie at the heart of the struggles over the future.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".