MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6982185569

Hermeneutics and the Creation of Theological Meaning: A Critical Analysis of the 1994 Human Sexuality Report of The Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC)

2019· dissertation· en· W6982185569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHermeneuticsHuman sexualityPraxisConstructiveConversationInterpretation (philosophy)ExistentialismInclusion (mineral)Ecclesiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Controversy surrounding human sexualities is ubiquitous in secular and ecclesial discourse. While an increasing number of governments have voted to extend the rights of LGBGTQI2 persons, social inclusion remains unsettled. Acknowledging an impasse in contemporary debates, this dissertation asserts that the impasse has roots in a larger hermeneutical crisis and that unexamined hermeneutical assumptions and practices prevent constructive dialogue. To expose the hermeneutical crisis underlying the current impasse in the church this dissertation critically analyzes the hermeneutical theory and praxis of The Presbyterian Church in Canada (PCC) as it is manifested in its 1994 Human Sexuality Report. This critical study of one denomination’s official document and its hermeneutic – i.e., the way it reads and uses Scripture and appeals to an authoritative body of literature -- provides a case study. Analysis demonstrates that within the PCC’s Human Sexuality Report there exists several reading strategies that are uncritically mixed. On account of this, there are hermeneutical inconsistencies in the document that continue to fuel ongoing debates in the church. The thesis concludes that established interpretive practices can be structured to account for new knowledge and experience without compromising traditional/historic understandings of ecclesial communities, opening up prospects for a needed intervention that will generate fruitful conversation among Christians who hold variant approaches to and understandings of the biblical text.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0490.083
Scholarly communication0.0200.005
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicHistory of Science and Natural History→French-language works237,207→