Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Poser la question de la lecture des Écritures, et spécifiquement de la lecture théologique des Écritures, implique – mais cela est-il si clair? – qu’une lecture non théologique des Écritures soit vraiment possible, qu’elle n’ait jamais eu (de) lieu. Or, la question de la lecture, c’est-à-dire du « comment lire? », est une question politique, à cause de son arraisonnement à la logique calculante du programme, mais aussi parce qu’elle suppose résolues les questions « pourquoi lire? » et « qui peut lire? ». et s’agissant plus spécifiquement de la lecture de la Bible, et de ce que l’on appelle une lecture théologique des Écritures, les questions se redoublent. Identifier une certaine lecture cléricale – c’est-à-dire une lecture officielle, et à la limite autoritaire – à la (seule) lecture authentiquement théologique possible, ou exclure, en la disqualifiant, toute lecture théologique en lui reprochant par exemple son déficit d’ecclésialité ou de scientificité, c’est s’interdire de penser une certaine lecture théologique des Écritures.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".