Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé En 2003, trois universités francophones joignaient leurs forces pour conduire un projet de recherche sur l’herméneutique théologique de Vatican II. La création de ce groupe interuniversitaire reposait sur la conviction que l’avenir du catholicisme se joue notamment sur l’interprétation que l’on va donner au concile. L’objectif n’était pas de définir et de promouvoir une position ni de faire école dans le domaine. Le projet reposait d’abord sur un constat : celui d’un déplacement de la recherche sur le terrain de l’herméneutique du concile. allant de paire avec une utilisation de cette dernière comme arme par ceux qui s’opposaient au concile. Plus fondamentalement, c’est la notion de tradition et de développement de la doctrine qui se trouvent en jeu dans le débat. L’étude de l’herméneutique du concile doit donc aujourd’hui conduire les théologiens à un travail en profondeur sur ces questions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".