Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. Introduction Presuming that most J.E.S. readers have some knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church, I will begin with a short discussion of the United Church of Canada, followed by a history of the dialogue group. The United Church of Canada came into being through a church union in 1925 among Methodists, Congregationalists, and parts of the Presbyterian Church, which made it the largest Protestant denomination in Canada. The United Church kept a self-understanding of being a united and uniting church. Some smaller church unions also happened after 1925 (for example, with the Evangelical United Brethren). The church stands theologically in the Reformed tradition, has a strong social commitment, and is usually on the liberal side of the range of viewpoints on current ethical questions. In August, 1974, the General Council of the United Church of Canada passed a resolution that invited the Roman Catholic Church in Canada enter into conversations concerning Christian unity. The following month, the Plenary Assembly of the Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops responded positively the invitation. In November, 1975, the first dialogue meeting took place, which means that the dialogue has now been meeting for nearly thirty years. Each of the two churches designates six delegates the dialogue, including one national staff person. The representatives come from different areas of Canada and include men and women, lay and clergy, francophone and anglophone. There has always been an effort work bilingually in order take into account the different cultural realities in our Canadian context within both churches. The Anglican Church sends an observer the meetings (which is an interesting practice make bilateral conversations transparent for other partner churches). The dialogue group meets twice a year for two or three days. As we gather for several days, this allows for intense theological work, for common prayer time, and for social events and the building of personal friendships. Integrating these different dimensions of intellectual, spiritual, and social sharing is an important part of the dynamic of our dialogue. II. Mandate for and Content of the Dialogue's Work The group gave itself a mandate in its earlier stages that reads as follows: Within the larger setting of the search for unity among Christians, the dialogue group seeks increase understanding and appreciation between the Roman Catholic and the United Church of Canada. It explores pastoral, theological and ethical issues, including those which divide our churches. Participants in the dialogue group expect learn from and be challenged by one another and commit themselves countering misinformation, stereotypes and prejudices that influence the members of our churches. I want highlight two points in the self-understanding of the group. First, the group is open dealing with a wide range of issues related church life, of a pastoral, theological, and ethical nature. While the issues it chooses may divide our churches, the idea is not only discuss divisive topics but also find and work on the common ground. Second, the dialogue members commit themselves become advocates within their own church for better understanding of the partner church, to countering misinformation, stereotypes and prejudices. Thus, the concern bring back the fruits of the dialogue encounter into one's own denomination has been present from the beginning. In the description of the activities of the group is also included that it not only reports back the sponsoring bodies but that it also seeks ways communicate its findings the members of both churches. This has been realized through the writing of several common statements. There has also been a practice of meeting with a local group involved in ecumenical activities for one evening and share with them around the current theme. …
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".