MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114232600 · doi:10.1163/22144471-bja10018

Speaking Back: Reading a Christian Denomination’s Vision for Diversity through the Eyes of its Children and Congregations

2020· article· en· W3114232600 on OpenAlexaffabout
David M. Csinos

Bibliographic record

VenueEcclesial Practices · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsAtlantic School of Theology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulticulturalismTransformative learningMeaning (existential)Active listeningDiversity (politics)Reading (process)SociologyGender studiesPedagogyLawPolitical sciencePsychologyAnthropologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article analyzes the United Church of Canada’s vision for becoming intercultural through data generated by qualitative research into the theological meaning-making of children within United Church congregations. The author provides an overview of the broader research project through which this data was generated and background information about Canadian multiculturalism and the United Church’s response to the challenges of multiculturalism, particularly its 2006 document, ‘A Transformative Vision for the United Church of Canada.’ The author presents three points of critique of this document that come into focus when analyzed through the lens of children within United Church congregations. These points include the important step of intentionally listening to voices on the margins, the document’s neglect of individuals and contexts that hold hybrid cultural identities, and its tendency to overlook congregations that are intercultural.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.028
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcclesial PracticesSame topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207