Perceptions and experience of interfaith dialogue in Winnipeg: An exploration of understandings and ideas among Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith leaders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an exploratory qualitative study based on the personal experiences and observations of 23 research participants made up of leaders of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith organizations. As such, data generated through this study is not meant to quantify or compare differences between the three faith communities involved. This research project focused on (1) understanding what is happening with interfaith dialogue in Winnipeg from the perspective of leaders of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim faith-based organizations (FBOs), (2) identifying obstacles to interfaith dialogue among Abrahamic faith organizations in Winnipeg, and (3) identifying perspectives on the potential benefits of interfaith dialogue among Abrahamic faith organizations in Winnipeg. The research is based on semi-structured one-on-one interviews with leaders of Abrahamic FBOs and the drawing of a personal lifeline identifying landmark events related to faith and interfaith involvement in participants’ lives. The study is rooted in grounded theory and arts-informed methods as the two main inquiry approaches to research. The stories and lifelines generated through these interviews were then analyzed for common themes and data was compiled based on details identifying the occurrence of interfaith dialogue in the city and its perceived obstacles as well as benefits among Winnipeg’s Abrahamic faiths. The data was then used to generate findings, and to propose potential areas for future action and research. The research is framed by Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS) literature on Critical and Emancipatory Peacebuilding, Interfaith Dialogue, and Conflict Transformation to situate the study. By combining an understanding of Winnipeg’s context with the literature and data on interfaith dialogue and peacebuilding, the research explores what is happening with dialogue between religious organizations, what barriers may be preventing dialogue, and what level of willingness exists for FBOs to participate in dialogue.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".