MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990093076 · doi:10.1080/0458063x.2014.922001

My Word Shall Not Return to Me Empty: The Lectionary as Ecumenical Event

2014· article· en· W1990093076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan F. Detscher

Bibliographic record

VenueLiturgy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiturgyFortress (chess)SAINTHistoryGermanClassicsTheologyArt historyPhilosophyAncient history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes The Vatican Council II, “Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, 4 December 1963,” in Documents on the Liturgy, 1963–1979, Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts, International Commission on English in the Liturgy (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1982), 14. The Roman Catholic Churches in the United States and Canada are currently using the second typical edition of the Lectionary for Mass, published in Latin in 1981 and in English in the United States in 1998. Consultation on Common Texts, Common Lectionary: The Lectionary Proposed by the Consultation on Common Texts (New York: The Church Hymnal Corporation, 1983). Consultation on Common Texts, The Revised Common Lectionary (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992). Consultation on Common Texts, The Revised Common Lectionary: Twentieth Anniversary Annotated Edition (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2012). Consultation on Common Texts, Revised Common Lectionary Prayers (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2002). Consultation on Common Texts, Revised Common Lectionary Daily Readings (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2005). Additional informationNotes on contributorsAlan F. DetscherMonsignor Alan F. Detscher is the pastor of Saint Catherine of Siena Roman Catholic Church in Riverside, Connecticut. He has previously served as executive director of the Secretariat for the Liturgy of the USCCB and as chair of the Consultation on Common Texts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.929
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiturgySame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207