Once upon a spiral : the story of the Centre for Christian Studies action/reflection model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Action/Reflection model used at the Centre for Christian Studies (CCS), a theological college of the United Church of Canada for diaconal preparation, is the subject of this research. This tool for carrying out transformative theological education is taught to students and used by them to reflect on and integrate their learning into practice with a view to "living a theology of justice". It helps them analyse their experience of the world with a critical lens, considering their active response in light of theology, social analysis, Scripture, and other theory. This research documents the lived experience of the CCS Action/Reflection model: the originating theories; staff and student input into its formation; how it has evolved; how it has been taught and learned; and what it has come to mean to graduates and staff who have used it. The study is structured as a narrative weaving together multiple strands from staff and student perspectives. The tale begins with a chronological telling of creating, learning, and using the model. It then moves into naming patterns in the story: contradictions, insights, and overlapping conversations. Presenting an account that encapsulates the community memory, two themes emerge: the historical and contextual details of the model's development, alongside its flexibility and capacity for adaptation to different needs and situations. The story of the CCS Action/Reflection model is recorded as a narrative of theory development and pedagogy, which addresses how theological students can learn to reflect in a way that is well defined, beneficial to learning, and integrated into practice.
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 | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| 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".