MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Together Whole: A Participatory Understanding of Health from a Wesleyan Perspective

2020· article· en· W3034082242 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael Nausner

Bibliographic record

VenueWesley and Methodist Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTheological Perspectives and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)SociologySoteriologyCitizen journalismEnvironmental ethicsIndividualismEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This article argues for a participatory understanding of health from a Wesleyan perspective. Such an understanding needs to be rooted in Wesley's soteriology of the renewal of creation. Health from that perspective also has communal, social, and ecological dimensions. Such participatory understanding of health then is exemplified by looking at the social and communal significance of Jesus' healing ministry, which never focuses solely on the health of individuals. It follows John Swinton in his examination of depression and dementia as phenomena that need to be looked at theologically anew from a participatory perspective, since they are always more than just conditions attached to individuals. The second half of the article highlights Wesley's soteriology shaped by an understanding of salvation/health as participation in the divine, deals critically with a too narrow understanding of the relation between health and holiness, and finally affirms the Eucharist as a paradigmatic and non-individualistic expression of health as participation with not only communal but also ecological implications.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.074
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.568
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.054 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWesley and Methodist StudiesSame topicTheological Perspectives and PracticesFrench-language works237,207