Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’enjeu de ces quelques pages est d’expliciter l’hypothèse principale qui a guidé la réalisation du projet de recherche sur La réception du concile Vatican II, à partir du premier tome déjà paru et dans l’attente du second. Il s’agira ici de développer les arguments majeurs en faveur de cette hypothèse, tout en tenant compte des objections qu’elle peut soulever. Après avoir rendu compte de la bipartition du projet en deux volumes, on précisera les notions clés de cette approche globale de Vatican II, celle de « corpus » et celle de « style pastoral », la « pastoralité » étant précisément le principe d’unification des deux versants théologal et historico-ecclésial du Concile et de sa réception. Le premier volume s’intéressant davantage à l’exercice de la fonction herméneutique par le Concile, on explicitera enfin la théorie de la réception induite par cette pratique herméneutique. C’est à partir de là que la logique interne de l’ensemble du parcours pourra s’éclairer.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".