Encyclopaedic models in the Kuyperian tradition (part 2: from the 1970s to the present) : 2nd quarter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the second of a series of three articles exploring in historical order several encyclopaedic models presented in the Kuyperian tradition. This article deals with the period from the 1970s to the present. The works of the followers and successors of Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, Stoker and Van Til are examined and evaluated to identify their strong and weak points. The role of scientific and pre-scientific frameworks (e.g. philosophy, worldviews), their functions, the relationships between the sciences and so forth are explored in several different models. The purpose is to provide an evaluation, to identify strategies and patterns and possibly to draw lessons for the future. My main argument is that, during the period in question, there were several attempts at improving the Kuyperian model(s) by eliminating some rigidities and by better recognising the complex and multiple relationships and influences among frameworks. These attempts were not always successful. Yet in many cases they show the way towards a better encyclopaedic model. A further question is introduced: is it possible that a certain mediation-pattern in the models caused Kuyperian scholarship to focus mainly on the development of specific disciplines (regarded as crucial) while neglecting other fields? Ensiklopediese modelle in die Kuyperiaanse tradisie (deel 2: vanaf die 1970's tot die hede) Hierdie is die tweede in 'n reeks van drie artikels wat in historiese volgorde enkele ensiklopediese modelle in die Kuyperiaanse tradisie verken. Hierdie artikel handel oor die periode vanaf die 1970's tot die hede. Die werk van die volgelinge en nakomelinge van Dooyeweerd, Vollenhoven, Stoker en Van Til word ondersoek en ge-evalueer, ten einde hul sterk en swak punte te identifiseer. Die rol van wetenskaplike en voor-wetenskaplike raamwerke (bv. filosofie, wereldbeskouings), hul funksies, die verhoudinge tussen die vakwetenskappe, ensovoorts, in verskeie modelle word verken. Die doel is om 'n evaluering te verskaf, om strategiee en patrone te identifiseer en om moontlike lesse vir die toekoms daaruit af te lei. My hoofargument is dat daar, in die periode onder bespreking, verskeie pogings was om die Kuyperiaanse model(le) te verbeter deur sommige van die rigiditeite uit te skakel en om die komplekse en veelvoudige verhoudinge en invloede tussen raamwerke te herken. Hierdie pogings was nie altyd suksesvol nie. Tog kan gestel word dat die pogings in vele gevalle 'n beter weg tot 'n ensiklopediese model aantoon. 'n Verdere vraag word aan die orde gestel: Is dit moontlik dat 'n sekere mediasie-patroon in die modelle nie veroorsaak dat die Kuyperiaanse navorsing hoofsaaklik fokus op die ontwikkeling van spesifieke dissiplines (wat as deurslaggewend beskou word), terwyl ander velde van ondersoek verwaarloos word nie?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".