Bibliographic record
Abstract
The subject of my essay in honor of our kind friend and colleague, EnzoTiezzi, requires a bit of explanation – not the parts about ecology and economics, which were areas of our common interest and work. But to consider them in the context of eschatology may seem odd. First, Enzo and I never discussed eschatology or theology at all, so I should make it clear that I am not attributing any par-ticular beliefs to him. But he was an honest and thoughtful man, and I regret that I never took the initiative to ask his views on such ultimate questions. The death of a good friend, born in the same year as one’s self, focuses the mind on the doctrine of ‘last things’. So these are my refl ections stimulated by remembrance of Enzo – thoughts I wish I could discuss with him, and argue about, over a bottle of Chianti from his own vineyard in his beloved Sienna. Maybe other friends of Enzo actually had such a conversation with him and will share it. Eschatology is not the most popular fi eld of theology. It deals with last things, the end of time and creation – not something of which we have any experience, so it is more an expression of hope than knowledge. Many Christian theologians believe that our hope, both individual and collective, ulti-mately lies in the New Creation (Rom 8), which will be God’s act at the end of the present creation (Jurgen Moltmann, Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, John Polkinghorne). One thing that science
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".