MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926056267 · doi:10.3138/tjt.2018-0125

The Impact of Non-Western Participants at Vatican <scp>ii</scp>

2019· article· en· W2926056267 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Chris Stackaruk

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialecticContext (archaeology)Scope (computer science)SociologyPoliticsJudaismHoly SeeReligious studiesPolitical scienceTheologyLawHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a way, this article is about a dialectical interaction between religious politics and political religion through an examination of a turn of events during Vatican Council ii. It shows the impact made by global Catholicism on the council and the production of what is now a benchmark document, Nostre Aetate. It provided an impetus for liturgical reforms and developments in the Church’s social teachings that made room for non-European cultures, or the ‘other,’ thereby making the Church truly global for the first time. This has its origin with a small minority of participants, those outside the Eurocentric zone, at the Council. This article demonstrates that the minority exerted considerable influence in producing the aforementioned document. Their influence widened the scope of discussions and later engagement of the Church, transforming the scope of the Nostra Aetate from solely Judaism to all non-Christian religions. This article traces the handful of participants and pivotal events that brought the largest Christian Church into a dialectical dialogue with non-Christian religions and examines their significance in a global context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207