A sideways glance – being on an editorial board for 25 years: personal and theological reflections
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This theological reflection is based on 25 years of membership of being on the editorial board of the first CONTACT, now Practical Theology. Autoethnographic in style it focuses on the key role of theological reflection and how Practical Theology models and encourages how people can become practical theologians. This includes conscious and unconscious elements focussing on the development of an individual theology alongside key events from each person’s past. Theological reflection emerges out of this personal context, but which is enhanced by being in touch with other practical theologians in varying stages of their development. To this end, Practical Theology, and CONTACT before it, offered a place to belong, a community of people engaged in shared endeavours. This is vital in times of complex social, political and spiritual change. As knowledge advances, in such areas as neuroscience, these can be allied to the rich heritage of pastoral traditions held in practical theology. There is the potential for a new dimension of theological reflection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it