MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891387465 · doi:10.38140/at.v38i1.3476

WHAT CONVINCED THE WORLD COMMUNION OF REFORMED CHURCHES IN 1998 AND WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IN 2015 TO READMIT THE DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH AS A FULL MEMBER?

2018· article· en· W6891387465 on OpenAlex

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

VenueActa Theologica · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformed Theology and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceInstitutionChristianityCanon lawChurch history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As members of the World Council of Churches, the two synods of the Dutch Reformed Church broke their ties with this institution in 1961, following the critisism of the Cottesloe Consultation of 1960 on apartheid. The World Alliance of Reformed Churches, which became part of the World Communion of Reformed Churches in 2010, declared a status confessionis against the theological and moral justification of apartheid and suspended the membership of the Dutch Reformed Church at Ottawa in 1982. As a result of the changes effected in South Africa and the Dutch Reformed Church, the latter was readmitted as full member of the Alliance in 1998. In 2007 the Dutch Reformed Church applied for membership of the World Council. It was granted in 2015.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.218 · 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