MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7079532325 · doi:10.26108/nfsr-ta31

Towards an understanding of the roots, core concepts and contextual application of 'missional church' within the Canadian Baptists of Atlantic Canada

2021· article· en· W7079532325 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationFaithMeaning (existential)ConventionRestructuringValue (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the August 2011 Oasis – the Annual Assembly of the then Convention of Atlantic Baptists Churches (CABC), which now is known as the Canadian Baptists of Atlantic Canada(CBAC) – the church-appointed delegates accepted the 'Senior Staff Restructuring Plan' which included a series of proposed goals as they looked towards the year 2025. One of the 2025 goals that was adopted at the 2011 Oasis was that by theyear 2025 "eighty percent of CABC churches would demonstrate a missional culture." Making use of the 'missional' language was admittedly new for this particular denominational family as the term itself had only been coming into common usage since the 1990's and it remained (as it does yet today) a term that can carry shades of different meaning depending on who is using it. This study traces the rise of the 'missional' conversation and explores the Scriptural and theological basis for its legitimacy. Research was gathered from 140 quantitative surveys completed by CBAC pastors as well as qualitative interviews with four CBAC pastors. Together this body of research demonstrates that CBAC pastors and churches largely affirm the value of the missional paradigm while acknowledging that many congregations are yet struggling to know how to meaningfully live into it. These congregations and their leaders would welcome accessible, practical resources to aid them in knowing how they could more holistically live out their faith in their neighbourhoods and world.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiaU-DEVSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207