Bibliographic record
Abstract
Congregational care strengthens relationships and supports spiritual growth. This article establishes groundwork for developing congregational care at First Baptist in Edmonton (FBC) by introducing a spiritual needs approach to engage people in conversation and by using a Spiritual Styles Assessment that has 36 questions to foster communication among congregational members. The article has four parts. The first introduces the congregation and a list of spiritual needs. The second part includes information about the Spiritual Styles Assessment and spirituality research. Parts three and four describe attitudes, skills and practices that enhance communicative action by helping people talk together and practice radical welcome as a foundation for congregational care. The purpose for establishing a foundation for congregational care is to suggest a way forward for a congregation that faces significant differences in values, beliefs, expectations, personal experience, and faith assumptions, even among people who have known each other for years. FBC is trying to find ways to reach understanding and offer care to all who enter the Sanctuary. The purpose of the article is to reflect philosophically on what congregants need from each other as signs of respect, inclusion and caring. The article outlines attitudes, skills, and practices that create communicative communities that are capable of nurturing congregational care by developing human understanding based on faith experience and communicative action.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".