MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403817500 · doi:10.55476/001c.125214

Doing Theology by Listening to Marginalized Voices? Methodological Elements from Encountering Indigenous Families in a Northern Canadian Community

2024· article· en· W4403817500 on OpenAlex
Julian Paparella

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Moral Theology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Society, and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningIndigenousSociologyGender studiesCommunicationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the experience of encountering Indigenous families in a northern Canadian community, this article draws methodological elements for doing theology by listening to people who suffer marginalization. Firstly, I situate listening to marginalized voices as an act of receiving Vatican II and a way of putting into practice Pope Francis’s call for a church that goes out to be evangelized on a path of encounter and dialogue. Secondly, I question the terminology used in referring to those who are marginalized and revisit the centre-periphery paradigm from a theological perspective, in favour of the disruptive movement of bringing the peripheries to the centre, in resonance with Matthew 25. Finally, I draw lessons from the experience of listening to Indigenous families in the Canadian north, on the journey towards a theology that listens to the voice of God in those who are marginalized.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it