Generous Spaciousness: Influencing the Experience of Participants in Dialogue About Same-Sex Marriage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generous Spaciousness: Examining the Influence in Dialogue on Same-Sex Marriage Wendy VanderWal Gritter Doctor of Ministry Knox College and the University of Toronto 2015 ABSTRACT A case study that looks at the question: how does the posture of generous spaciousness influence the experience of congregational participants in a dialogue about same-sex marriage? Members from the same congregation were invited to a conference designed and delivered by the researcher in order to learn about the values, goals, and dialogue framework of generous spaciousness. In the conference setting participants had the opportunity to experience a minimum of three hours of dialogue with a small group of people holding different perspectives about same-sex marriage. A Dialogue Session with eight participants from the same congregation was then studied to allow the researcher to examine the integration and its effects of generous spaciousness on the participants’ experience of dialogue about same-sex marriage. Participants were positively influenced by generous spaciousness by feeling that they could be heard in the dialogue session, that sharing was honest and vulnerable, that learning and mutual understanding increased, and by being energized to consider next steps for their congregation as a whole.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".