What we mean by public missiology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2014 and 2015 a panel of missiologists assembled at the American Society of Missiology (ASM) to discuss ideas, concepts, and practices in support of the proposed 2016 ASM annual meeting under the heading “Missiology and Public Life: Mission’s Constructive Engagement with Societies, Change and Conflict.” In these panels, subsequent ASM panel discussions (2017–19), and in two issues of the journal Missiology devoted to the topic (April 2016, January 2017), the concept of public missiology emerged, and from this grew an informal seven-member study group of colleagues to clarify what might be meant by “public missiology” and define its scope. The following summarizes our study group’s conceptualization of public missiology and reflects our thinking to date. We suggest approaching missiological theory and practice from a new direction, one that focuses upon public life and emerging public orders as its object of analysis under the conditions of a rapidly changing world-historical order. This fresh approach to mission studies makes, we believe, an important contribution to ensuring mission’s vitality for the next several decades or for the next half-century.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.003 |
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 it