MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502831244 · doi:10.1111/nbfr.12075

Religiously We Dwell: Heidegger's Later Contribution to Philosophy of Religion

2015· article· en· W1502831244 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Blackfriars · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnlightenmentWorshipTransformative learningMeaning (existential)Philosophy of religionPhilosophyPoetryField (mathematics)EpistemologyObject (grammar)Secular stateReligious studiesAestheticsSociologyTheologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Enlightenment has bequeathed to us the notion that religion can be treated as an object of theoretical inquiry, giving rise to the “secular” concept of religion as a field of meaning or truth-content that is (ideally) isolable from the particular practices that constitute religious worship. I argue that the later Heidegger's “poetic” thought disrupts the paradigm underlying the secular concept of religion and points us toward an alternative understanding of religion as tantamount to being-in-the-world. Heidegger thus opens the way for post-secular reflection on the transformative potential of religion in human culture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.296 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew BlackfriarsSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207