MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971106305 · doi:10.3138/tjt.24.suppl_1.51

Relativism No, Pluralism Yes

2008· article· en· W1971106305 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gregory Baum

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCatholicism and Religious Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRelativismHomilyFundamentalismPluralism (philosophy)PhilosophyHonourRevelationCultural relativismEpistemologyReligious pluralismTheologyReligious studiesSociologyLawPolitical sciencePoliticsHuman rights

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Christian Churches must wrestle with the difficult question of how to oppose the dominant relativism of contemporary culture and at the same time honour cultural and religious pluralism. In his homily of April 18, 2005 during the solemn Mass prior to his election to the papacy, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger expressed his fear that society was steadily moving toward "a dictatorship of relativism." The true and the good are increasingly defined in utilitarian terms: ideas are true and values valid if they serve people's material interests. In present-day society people no longer believe in abiding truths of universal relevance. For this reason, said the Cardinal, they look upon the articulation of Christian teaching as a form of fundamentalism. Against this present trend the Church must defend the single great truth: God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.047
Scholarly communication0.0090.019
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicCatholicism and Religious StudiesFrench-language works237,207