Reflections on Towards an Anglican Covenant (JSC March 2006) and
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gomez to contribute to the Covenant Design Group in January of 2007. I am grateful for the invitation. I write from the context of the Anglican Church of Canada and my comments have been shaped by conversations formal and informal in both local and national settings as Canadian Anglicans have over the past two years been involved in thinking about and responding to The Windsor Report. At this point of writing, I am involved in planning and preparations for our next triennial meeting of General Synod, the highest governance body of the Anglican Church of Canada. My reflections here are shaped by the experience of these Synods and of national-level work within a church that lives out its communion in Christ across and within multiple diversities, in a way as a microcosm of the realities of the Anglican Communion. Like the Communion in miniature, we too face the challenges and gifts of the vast geographical and cultural spread of the church. In our case we face these in most situations not just nationally but within dioceses. From our journey together in history we have learned lessons that shape our current commitments. We are committed to nurturing the relationships in which we live out this koinonia across multiple diversities and seek face to face meeting and worship as often as we are able. These experiences
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".