MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033365460 · doi:10.32597/dmin/692

Building a Place of Worship: The Journey of the Downsview Seventh-day Adventist Church in Toronto

2005· dissertation· en· W3033365460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kenneth D. Campbell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious Tourism and Spaces
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorshipSeventh day adventistArtReligious studiesTheologyHistoryPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this dissertation is to outline the process of constructing a new place of worship for the Downsview Seventh-day Adventist Church in Toronto, Canada. It can also serve to help other church congregations design and build appropriate places of worship. Problem The Downsview Church had been renting worship space for more than sixteen years. The use of rented space made fulfilling the mission of the church difficult for a variety of reasons. A new physical place of worship for the church was essential. Method In this dissertation, I examine biblical and theological principles for building places of worship, focusing especially on Bible texts and the writings of Ellen G. White. I also examine current literature on the proper management of church building projects. I outline how these theoretical and practical resources were used to guide the Downsview Church construction project. The Results My experience in implementing the church-building model developed here has led to the identification of a set of recommendations to guide congregations undertaking building plans. These recommendations focused on both the planning of construction projects and their implementation. Conclusion When rooted in appropriate theological and biblical principles, church-building projects can be very effective and are, in principle, replicable.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligious Tourism and SpacesFrench-language works237,207