Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research reported in this article examines what can be learnt from listening to young people who stay engaged with churches and those who leave. This research compared both groups’ experiences for further analysis. The authors analysed fourteen qualitative phenomenological interviews with young people aged 19–28 that documented young adults’ experiences of the Baptist Church in Perth, Western Australia. Attitudes to spirituality and dogma were central themes relevant to young people’s decision-making. The data was then compared with Fowler’s faith development theory, to find that many of the participants displayed faith styles reminiscent of individuative reflective faith, and their communities exhibited modal development akin to synthetic-conventional and mythic-literal faith. The article concludes by suggesting that young people (both those who stayed and those who left the church) were seeking dialogue about faith and spirituality, and that dissonance between young people’s faith style and the modal faith style of their church community affected decisions to stay or leave the church, and this relationship was not always straightforward. The implications for youth ministry are that it would be beneficial to focus more on dialogue about faith which accommodates and explores disagreement and less on dogma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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".