Putting (Inter)Faith into Practice: Reflections of a Jewish Scholar in Residence at a Canadian Lutheran Seminary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French expression, "démontrer, c'est montrer" (to demonstrate is to show), for me captures the spirit of interconnectivity within interfaith dialogue.Sitting down in a room with people of differing faiths and conversing about common topics, even about our divergent faiths, does not in itself constitute interfaith dialogue; it is merely a dialogue of people with differing faiths.Interfaith dialogue requires something more, something different.And to transmit what interfaith dialogue constitutes requires more than analysis of concurrent conversations and events involving interreligious adherents.Definitions may help clarify understanding of interfaith exchange, but only description of lived experience will demonstrate what one seeks to show.In academic terms, connotation rather than denotation is required.I approach the topic of "my neighbour's faith" through autobiography interspersed with chronicle, drawing on life experiences and lessons to demonstrate how my sensitivities and sensibilities towards interfaith have naturally led to the position I now hold as Jewish Scholar in Residence and Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary in Wilfrid Laurier University.I should like to emphasize from the beginning that the experiences and Jewish representations contained here are my own, and while they are not unique to me, neither are they a standard representation of Jews and Judaisms today.Perhaps better said, Jews and Judaisms are nonmonolithic.It is not possible to say that Judaism is this or that; rather, Judaisms cover a wide range of thought and expression.Jewish midrash characterizes Torah as having seventy faces: לתורה פנים .שבעים 2 This characterization renders a question that begins "What does Judaism teach about ..." uninformed.Judaism teaches many different things about just about anything one could imagine.This said, I can assure the reader that what is expressed here does represent a Jewish perspective, my own, and it is shared by several -perhaps even many -Jews, although not all Jews.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.125 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".