Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not conceivable that successions of causes and effects leading to now should have sprung from nowhere. Sclauzero of Toronto These words can inspire ‘nondemonstrative’ arguments for the existence of God that would proceed from very general facts about the world. Never mind, they say, details and ways in which the world is special. It and that is enough. For causes and reasons are required for that, causes and reasons need causes and reasons, and, eventually, if these systems are to be grounded and not to have sprung from nowhere, they must relate all to first and ultimate causes and reasons. Two such arguments – two rather different ‘takes’ on Sclauzero's words – will be examined. The argument of the next chapter, for an ultimate reason for The World, can be seen as a response to problems of the other, the argument of the present chapter, which is for a first cause for things. PART 1, QUESTION 2, OF SUMMA THEOLOGICA – “THE EXISTENCE OF GOD ” The question of the existence of God is resolved by St. Thomas Aquinas into three questions. Article 1 : “Whether the Existence of God Is Self-evident?” He says, Yes, but not to us. (ST I q2,a1 pp. 18–19.) That God exists is self-evident in itself, since its predicate is in fact contained in the essence of its subject. But it is not self-evident for us since this essence, the essence of God, is not known to us.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.005 |
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".