MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026118093 · doi:10.1163/156973111x594675

‘Structural Indifference’ and Compatibilism in Reformed Orthodoxy

2011· article· en· W2026118093 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reformed Theology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsRegent College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompatibilismEpistemologyPhilosophyPresumptionContingencyOrthodoxyFree willPolitical scienceLawTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Reformed Thought on Freedom the Scotian apparatus of synchronic contingency, structural indifference, and logical moments is deployed in an attempt to show that the Reformed Orthodox espoused Scotian freedom of indifference as an intrinsic feature of their anthropology. It is counter-argued that the sense given to ‘structural indifference’ is at odds with the Orthodox commitment to indifference in the divided sense. Further, recent commentators misunderstand the divided sense only as the Reformed Orthodox use it. Finally it is briefly argued that the Orthodox use of the contrast between being free and being constrained, and their criteria for moral accountability, are consistent with certain forms of compatibilism. So it is a reasonable presumption that as regards human freedom, the Orthodox favoured a version of compatibilism.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.183 · 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