MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042522897 · doi:10.7202/038399ar

La foi qui assume le doute

2009· article· fr· W2042522897 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Roland Galibois

Bibliographic record

VenueLaval théologique et philosophique · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Qu’en est-il du doute qui porte sur l’existence même de Dieu, l’objet de la foi ? Doit-on l’assumer sans jamais prétendre l’éliminer ? On le doit, dit Tillich, dans un écrit de 1919 intitulé « Justification et doute », où, de façon paradoxale, il confronte un tel doute à l’idée paulino-luthérienne de la justification. Étant nous-mêmes porteurs, en tant que personnes, d’un sens imprégné de mystère, nous sommes à la fois conscients de la distance infinie qui nous sépare de l’absolu et de la singulière parenté qui nous en approche.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.041
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaval théologique et philosophiqueSame topicPolitical and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207