MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045471681 · doi:10.1515/ijpt-2020-0039

COVID-19 Demands Theological Reflection: Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian Perspectives on the Present Pandemic

2020· article· en· W3045471681 on OpenAlex
Jianhui Xiong, Nazila Isgandarova, Amy Panton

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Practical Theology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuddhismPandemicFaithCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SociologyReflection (computer programming)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakIslamReligious studiesPhilosophyTheologyMedicineVirologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract What are some ways that people from the Buddhist, Muslim and Christian faith traditions can reflect upon the coronavirus pandemic using a theological lens? How can Buddhist, Muslim and Christian practitioners respond in practical ways to the coronavirus pandemic, utilizing resources from their faith traditions? This contribution offers reflections on the worldwide suffering and challenges that the pandemic has caused from the perspectives of Buddhist, Muslim and Christian practitioners. Each writer offers practical resources and theological reflection from their vantage point as spiritual care providers and as people of faith.

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.

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)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.319 · 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