MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100977473

1 SUBMISSION TO THE ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA MARRIAGE COMMISSION

2015· article· en· W7100977473 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorshipCommissionPulpitOptimal distinctiveness theoryLiteral (mathematical logic)Religious beliefPropositionGender relations
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Question 1: How do you interpret what Scripture says about marriage? I understand the scriptures to describe that marriage is between man and woman, and man and woman only. I believe that the unlawful sexual relations forbidden by God in Leviticus 18 are explicit and literal commandments which are still in effect for those who worship Christ today. Furthermore it is my opinion that Romans 1:18-32 offers an explanation as to why such sexual relations are displeasing to God, further strengthening the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. Question 2: How do you understand the theological significance of gender difference in marriage? Mankind is male and female, and male and female are complimentary to one another. I understand the gender difference in marriage to be an image of the fullness of humanity; the unity of the duality of the two human sexes. I believe that in the complimentary nature of maleness to femaleness and vice versa, the two were made by God to work together.1 Karl Barth says, “to live humanly means never to escape the astonishment of one’s own sex at the other, and the desire of one’s sex to know the other.”2 I believe then that gender

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0240.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.009

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207