MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979199293 · doi:10.1177/0091829619869951

Spiritual renewal and the healing of creation

2019· article· en· W2979199293 on OpenAlexaffabout
Allan Effa

Bibliographic record

VenueMissiology An International Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsTaylor College and Seminary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlourishingEnvironmental ethicsCovenantAestheticsTheme (computing)SociologyExegesisHistoryLawPhilosophyPolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is a biblical exploration of the interplay between spiritual renewal of the people of God and the spirit’s work of renewing and healing creation. On the flip side, it highlights the biblical theme of environmental distress as a consequence of human disobedience. Beginning with God’s social covenant with Israel, the article moves to a primary focus on ecological texts in the book of Isaiah. Isaiah’s vision encompasses climactic catastrophes, the plight of animal species, the integrity and pollution of the soil, deforestation, and the languishing and flourishing of the entire created order. Isaiah’s pneumatology uniquely portrays the work of the Creator Spirit as one of renewing and breathing new life into a suffering world. This article offers a fresh exegesis of the ecological texts of Isaiah and considers a number of practical implications for mission in light of the environmental challenges particularly unique to Canada’s province of Alberta. It concludes by charting some of the ways people who exhibit the fruit of the spirit might alter their lifestyles and contribute to the spirit’s work of healing 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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueMissiology An International ReviewSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207