Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem During the last decade, Calgary Central Church has not been intentionally involved in reaching families with children. They have done many different types of evangelism and community outreach programs but nothing to attract this specific segment of the population. With a large number of unreached families with children in the community, the need for a specific outreach project like this was obvious. Method A 12-week program to reach families with children was developed and implemented during 2016-2017. The approach of this project was to reach the parents by reaching their children first. For this purpose, Kids' Discipleship Club was developed and implemented. Its main purpose was missional, but during the course of the implementation stage, the purpose of the project became a combination of both reaching families in the community and helping church families in discipling their children. Results Twenty families enrolled their children in this program, 14 of them from the church and six from the community. In total, there were 35 children who attended the weekly meetings. As a result of this program, the families from the community had a chance to get to know our church and see that we care about them and their children. During this program, the leaders and the families from the church established relationships with the families from the community. The other result was that the families from the church strengthened their relationship with Jesus. The children had an amazing experience that helped them grow and mature on their discipleship journey. Conclusions This project demonstrates that churches must become intentional in reaching out to different demographic groups in our community. A one-size-fits-all approach does not work; therefore, the church needs to come up with new strategies. I believe that this type of project can be very successful in reaching out to families, and it has the potential to have a great missional impact on our communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".