MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320401253 · doi:10.33972/ijsl.195

Toward a Servant-Led Response Rooted in Forgiveness and Restorative Justice in the Catholic Clergy Sexual Abuse Scandal

2010· article· en· W4320401253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dung Q. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Servant-Leadership · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForgivenessSexual misconductServantRestorative justiceEconomic JusticePsychologyCriminologySexual abuseSocial psychologyPolitical scienceLawMedicineSuicide preventionMedical emergencyPoison controlEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A STORY OF CLERGY ABUSE AND FORGIVENESS ASKING A chill in the air, fog smearing his windows, Tom Blanchette drove west of Boston to Lexington. He had an appointment with Father Joseph Birmingham. It had been twenty-five years since Birmingham's going-away party in Sudbury, where they last spoke. "How could I ever explain to anybody that I had laid naked in Father B.'s bed over a hundred times? I didn't know how to explain these experiences. All I knew was I didn't like it. But I saw him every Saturday and Sunday, because I worked in the church rectory; I saw him at least one night a week for catechism classes, and at least one night a week he was at our house for dinner. Every time we were alone he pursued sexual activity. For two years I would say we had sex two or three times a week, sometimes two or three times a day." Until he was in his twenties, Tom had never mentioned a word of this history. One morning as Tom and an old friend were reminiscing about their teenage years, Father Birmingham's name came up. The friend grew angry and said, "that bastard ... he queered me." Tom then polled his brothers and learned that Father B. had solicited sex from them too. In a span of a week, Tom and his mother compiled a list of twenty-five victims.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0580.039
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0110.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Servant-LeadershipSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207