Who is my Neighbour? Theological Education in the Global Village of the 21st Century (Responses)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following are three response papers that were presented at the “Who is My Neighbour? Interfaith Dialogue and Theological Formation Conference,” held on October 19, 2022, and are indirectly responding to Robert Hill's discussion of theological education in the global villiage of the 21st Century. A running theme throughout the first panel of the second day is the struggle to retain the vitality of the presence of God in theological education today, in contexts that are, not only increasingly diverse, but are also – in some cases – increasingly dismissive or wary of the Christian tradition. While Hill’s keynote address suggests that this vitality of presence can be retained by adopting a liberal biblical theology, the first respondent, Roland De Vries, considers what is lost when we allow “the myriad of demands placed on theological education” to obscure this vital presence, the very thing that gives theological education its coherence in the first place. The second respondent, Heather McCance, argues that an important part of overcoming this struggle lies in training students to form a theological imagination – “the capacity to grasp the presence of the holy in and through all things.” Reminding us that this vital presence is what allows theology to reach into “the crevices (or, better, fractures) of life” that other disciplines tend to ignore, Cory Andrew Labrecque ends the panel by offering a series of reflections that highlight the ongoing value of theological education in the twenty-first century, even in spaces that might want to exclude it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".