Bibliographic record
Abstract
In what follows, I will advance the thesis that the linguistic philosophy of modernity has left us with such an impoverished account of the role of language— specifically metaphorical language—that it has been nearly impossible to plead the case of those whose suffering is made worse by descriptions of their illnesses that are foreign to their own experience. However, recent developments in the philosophy of language, which some are calling postmodern, have allowed for an articulation of metaphor such that the body and the community can be recovered as significant moral players. I will suggest that the church and not medicine must then become the locus for the defining practices that give rise to any account of suffering which hopes to be intelligible in light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In other words, the greatest moral dilemma facing the church with regard to the sick is how to be a people who are able truthfully to narrate the lives and deaths of those in our midst. I hope to show how a discussion of illness and its metaphors bears significantly on this dilemma.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".