Piety in the Church—<i>Gottesvergessenheit</i> in Society: Obvservations on an Aspect of the Church's Task in Eastern Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibilities for knowing how to handle the concept of piety theologically are, as is also the case with the concept of religion, manifold and widely varied. And again as with the concept of religion, virtually everything that constitutes the Christian faith can be expressed by this concept. Schleiermacher proceeded in this way in his portrayal of the Christian faith as an expression of the religious self-consciousness of the Christian and, in this respect, of Christian piety.2 But the concept of piety can also be interpreted more narrowly, expressing the subjective enactment and representation by an individual human being of the relationship that God creates with humanity. In what follows, piety will be spoken of in this sense. It is not a matter of the constitution of faith, but rather of the unsubstitutable individual enactment of the relationship to God, and so too of faith in the context of the world. Having the individual human being particularly in view does not exclude the fact that piety is always of course a communal structuring and representation of faith; whoever has faith in Jesus Christ is simultaneously a member of the Christian community. One's own piety is shaped by others' forms of life and is itself enacted together with others in the gathering of the community. Undoubtedly there exists the threat of a purely habitual performance that renders the life of faith superficial. Yet, a merely habitual and superficial piety would ultimately no longer be piety at all. Rather, it belongs to the very nature of piety that it set forth the concerns of the faithful in an irreplaceable manner; no one can relieve another of his or her piety, nor can one force it upon another, because the significance that God has for a person's existence finds expression in it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".