Undocumented Migration as a Theologizing Experience: Religious Stories Korean American Dreamers Tell in the Face of Uncertainty. By Eunil David Cho
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intercultural practical theology is fundamentally about restoring voice to the voiceless (cf. Emmanuel Y. Lartey, In Living Color: An Intercultural Approach to Pastoral Care and Counseling [London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2003], p. 32). Gathering the stories of those marginalized in academia is not only a way to model collaborative and interdisciplinary dialogue, but also a step towards identifying the key themes shaping the field (Pamela R. McCarroll and HyeRan Kim-Cragg, ‘Introduction to the Special Issue “Practical Theology Amid Environmental Crises”’, Religions [Basel] 13, no. 10 [2022], p. 2). Relatedly, Eunil David Cho’s book offers a timely pastoral-theological exploration of the lives of undocumented Korean ‘Dreamers’ (DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] Recipients) who are active in Christian faith communities, focusing on their litany of struggles—‘unbelonging, grief, fear, racial injustice, [and] lack of resources’—which together create ‘the violence of uncertainty’ (p. 2). Why does this matter theologically? Because, as Cho shows, these marginalized young people are not passive victims of circumstances. Rather, they actively turn to their faith to make meaning of their situation, digesting the harsh reality both individually and in community. In Undocumented Migration as a Theologizing Experience, the experience of living in limbo becomes a site of theologizing—a space where questions of identity, hope, and God’s presence converge in real time (p. 101). Moreover, Cho situates the predicament of undocumented Korean Americans within a ‘regressive political climate’ (p. 54). Especially regarding this very critical current moment, illuminating their stories and re-authoring them carries vital importance for how faith communities respond and deepen their understanding.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| 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".