Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the light of the postcolonial context of Canada, this article asks: In what sense can empirical research in theology be done as an act of reconciliation? Christian churches in Canada have gradually recognized their complicity in the project of colonization of Indigenous peoples, particularly through the operation of residential schools that removed generations of children from their families in what has since been recognized as cultural genocide. As theological principles underpinned the involvement of Christian churches in colonialism, so too theological research has a part to play in reconciliation. The article offers orientations for using empirical methods in theological research from a postcolonial perspective in the light of the Canadian context. It begins by framing postcolonial theology in terms of reconciliation, understood as establishing and maintaining respectful relationships. Next, it navigates the possible contribution of theological research on the path of reconciliation, offering certain key considerations and criteria. Finally, the article suggests possible pathways by which empirical methods in theology could contribute to the process of reconciliation.
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 | 0.362 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.195 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.037 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".