Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on my leadership experiences in the academy, particularly as Dean of a theological faculty in a secular, public university (Université Laval), and my recent participation in the Synod on Synodality, I continue my reflections on the future of academic theology that I began in a Toronto Journal of Theology article on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Toronto School of Theology. I argue that drawing on the historical impetus of the creation of two Roman Catholic universities in 1852 (one in Quebec, the other in Ontario), theological institutions must think about social context and pertinence beyond the university. We cannot think abstractly about the development of our theological institutions. It would also be bad advice to consider it only by comparing them to other institutions around the world or by taking as a reference the criteria and strategies common to the development of university institutions. We should not exclude these approaches, but in this article I highlight the obligation to reflect in context; our institutions must never become detached from their social and ecclesial environment. After discussing the reasons that led to the creation of Catholic universities in Canada in the nineteenth century, the article highlights two challenges: the social progress of marginalized communities through access to university education, and the training of workers to the vineyard of the Lord, in particular the formation in synodality.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".