Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cohabitation of philosophy with the study of religion has such a long history that we have not been motivated to consider the terms of that relationship. This paper proposes that this relationship needs to be examined radically. That is to say it proposes to query the nature, or possible natures, of the relationship of philosophy to the study of religion by posing such questions as the following: What kind of philosophy belongs in the study of religion? Constructive? Critical? Does philosophy have an independent role in the study of religion or does it, rather, best play the role of ‘handmaiden’? To the extent that philosophy plays an integral part in the study of religion, how should philosophy reflect the global and cross-cultural nature of the study of religion? To what extent does a philosophy that is integral to the study of religion need to change in order to reflect the philosophical agendas integral to other religions than Christianity? La cohabitation de la philosophie avec l’étude de la religion a une si longue histoire que nous ne nous sommes pas penchés sur les termes de cette relation. Cet article montre le besoin d’un examen radical de cette relation. C’est-à-dire qu’il propose d’interroger la nature, ou les natures possibles, de la relation que la philosophie entretient avec l’étude de la religion à partir de plusieurs questions: Quels types de philosophie font partie de l’étude de la religion? Constructive? Critique? La philosophie a-t-elle un rôle indépendant dans l’étude de la religion ou est-elle plutôt dans le rôle de « servir » ? Dans la mesure où la philosophie est une partie intégrante de l’étude de la religion, comment la philosophie devrait-elle refléter la nature mondiale et culturellement croisée de l’étude de la religion ? Dans quelle mesure, une philosophie faisant partie intégrante de l’étude de la religion doit-elle être transformée de façon à rendre compte des programmes des religions autres que la Chrétienté?
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".