Collaborative Exploration of the Harmony of Science and Religion (Part 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SABET a collective as much as an individual phenomenon.Indeed, while "[f]irst and foremost among these favors, which the Almighty hath conferred upon man, is the gift of understanding" (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings XCV), "[t]he maturity of the gift of understanding is made manifest through consultation" (qtd. in Consultation no.3).Yet, observers of the Bahá'í community, and at times even Bahá'ís themselves, may understandably feel that the aspiration to "promot[e] the use of consultation for making decisions" in wider society is somewhat naïve (The Universal House of Justice, 30 December 2021)?In "Transformative Dialogue: A Key to Elevating Discourse," Roger Neyman and Charlotte Wenninger tackle the challenge of the dysfunctional discourse that seems to be proliferating in many social spaces today, and ask how we might establish the basic kinds of relationships-ones rooted in "love and harmony" and "freed from estrangement"-that are necessary for true consultation to occur (qtd. in Consultation no.10).They reconstruct "Transformative Dialogue," a practical approach grounded in evidence from a wide range of experiences in building constructive relationships for discourse between people predisposed to see each other as "other."This paper will be a valuable resource for those hoping, in the course of this Nine Year Plan, to deepen their understanding of the bases upon which Bahá'í consultation is built, and to extend them to ever wider and more diverse groups of people.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".