Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: After a long exile in the quaintly titled files of “irrationality and superstition,” theology and the issue of religion in general have resurfaced as central topics to theory-making in the Western tradition of thought. With this in mind, the intent of this article is to propose a name for this phenomenon: “late patrology.” The implication of the use of this term is that theology is experiencing a posthumous life following the demise of the Enlightenment project. Thinkers such as Giorgio Agamben, Slavoj Žižek, Alain Badiou, John D. Caputo, Gianni Vattimo, John Milbank, and others are in many ways revisiting (in new and different conditions) important theological matters we read about in patristic literature. Patrology ceased many centuries ago, but it has not disappeared. Contemporary thinkers are partaking in the same interpretive enterprise modelled and initiated by the authors of patristic literature: that of talking about the received name of God, arguing on all sides about the significance of its transmission from the past and its pertinence to the present and near future. I will focus on one exponent of this resurgent interest in theology, Giorgio Agamben. Specifically, I provide examples from some of his works that illustrate his project of grasping in their dispersion the effaced yet preponderant signs of theology hidden in our current political and cultural practices.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".