Bibliographic record
Abstract
This set of papers explores the topic of “Possible Futures for Philosophy of Religion.” Though the field of philosophy of religion today has grown relatively narrow, these four papers seek to stretch it back out and all four are (as befitting our topic) forward-looking. Although the papers cover several different issues, I am going to shoehorn them into that pre-conceived category—the future of philosophy of religion—and then focus on the parts of the papers central to that category and ignore the other parts that don’t fit that template. This will not do justice to the complexity of the reality I am describing, but this procrustean practice is not unusual in philosophy of religion. Cette palette d’articles explore la thématique des ‘futurs possibles pour la philosophie des religions’. Bien que le champ de la philosophie des religions se soit aujourd’hui relativement rétréci, ces quatre articles tentent de l’élargir à nouveau et tous les quatre sont (au bénéfice de la thématique) tournés vers son devenir. Bien qu’ils couvrent des aspects différents de cette thématique, je vais les faire entrer dans cette catégorie préconçue —le futur de la philosophie des religions— et me focaliserai sur les parties des textes qui sont essentielles à cette catégorie pour en ignorer celles qui n’entrent pas dans ce cadre précis. Une telle approche ne saurait rendre compte de la complexité de la réalité que je décris, mais cette pratique de Procuste n’est point inhabituelle en philosophie des religions.
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 | 0.034 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".