Feminist Christian Theological Engagement with Symbol, Myth and Ritual
Bibliographic record
Abstract
defended in 1998) was to examine how three significant and influential feminists in the area of Christian the ology have dealt with the sub-genres of symbol, myth, and ritual.Their work in regard to each of these three fields of study requires theorizing on the level of their engagement with, and development of, feminist epistemology methodology.All three of these feminists sit most comfortably in the epistemo logical location of standpoint feminism, albeit Schussler Fiorenza does take into account issues raised by postmodern feminism in her work dated from 1990 and forward.The primary building blocks of feminist standpoint theory that are shared by feminists working in a variety of pedagogical locations are: 1) a distinct feminist epistemology grounded in a theory of gender activity and social experience; 2) women, as an oppressed group, are in a position to have a clearer and less distorted picture of reality as they are outside of, or are marginalized to, hegem ony and therefore considerably less invested in maintaining it; 3) an insistence upon an interested or engaged social location "the condi tions which bestow upon its occupants scientific and epistemic advan tage" (Harding 1986, 148) in that they will construct a narrative that reflects their resistance to oppression; 4) an opposition to Cartesian
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".