MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3114335120 · doi:10.7202/1071163ar

LES IMPLICATIONS DE LA THÉOLOGIE INTERRELIGIEUSE DANS L’ÉDUCATION AU DIALOGUE INTERRELIGIEUX : regards croisés des théologiens Jacques Dupuis, Claude Geffré et Perry Schmidt-Leukel

2020· article· fr· W3114335120 on OpenAlexaff
Lindbergh Mondésir

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit (Université de Montréal) · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’éducation des jeunes au dialogue interreligieux en milieu scolaire catholique est une préoccupation constante des éducateurs chrétiens. L’auteur s’y intéresse dans une perspective de la théologie interreligieuse qu’il situe dans la suite de la théologie chrétienne du pluralisme religieux, nouvelle appellation de la théologie des religions proposée par Jacques Dupuis. Une théologie qui se veut dialogique, car partant du dialogue interreligieux et s’y référant tout au long de son élaboration. Pour trouver ce qui peut être son apport à l’éducation des jeunes au dialogue interreligieux, l’auteur met en dialogue trois théologiens qui y ont réfléchi, à savoir Jacques Dupuis, Claude Geffré et Perry Schmidt-Leukel. Puisque la dimension dialogique occupe une place importante dans cette théologie, il en dégage des dimensions essentielles qu’il met en rapport avec l’annonce explicite de Jésus Christ en contexte éducatif. Il conclut en montrant la fécondité de l’éducation au dialogue interreligieux, éclairée par la théologie interreligieuse.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.042
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 venueÉrudit (Université de Montréal)Same topicReligion, Society, and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207