What we mean by public missiology
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".