Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like in what follows to discuss the uses for civilization of Lonergan's philosophical work, and then say something about the broader significance of the method which he propounded for theology.In his very useful and stimulating article, Professor McShane raises the question of "the central present problem of Lonergan studies." 1 In my opinion, it is above all one of what Lonergan would call 'communications' -how to make his work, and its immensely important implications for our culture, available for the general intellectual community (as opposed to a small and embattled segment of the learned Catholic ghetto).Apart from the small, though widespread and vocal, community of his followers, the thinking public, notably the philosophers, have received his work with deafening silence.Even books on the nature of understanding as such often do not include Insight: A Study of Human Understanding 2 in their extensive bibliographies.And this consorts rather strangely with the opinion held by some of us, that Insight is among the outstanding intellectual achievements of the twentieth century.Those, like philosophers and psychologists, who might be expected to take most interest in Lonergan's work, do not even pay him the compliment of attacking him.Catholics too are often unsympathetic to his work, though the reasons that they give for this are not very impressive, so
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".