MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067295935 · doi:10.7202/009474ar

Parler de Dieu et du Christ, un défi ecclésial pour la dogmatique

2004· article· fr· W2067295935 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anne Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueLaval théologique et philosophique · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReligion, Gender, and Enlightenment
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncarnationHumanitiesPhilosophyChristologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pour réaliser le défi de l’évangélisation dans l’activité catéchétique, l’Église du Québec choisit de parler de Dieu et du Christ selon trois fondements : une anthropologie de l’incarnation ; un christocentrisme trinitaire ; une parole au service de l’humanisation des personnes et de la société. Cet article explore ces fondements à partir d’Augustin, de Michel Henry et d’une théologie ancrée dans une théorie du langage. Ces arrière-plans permettront de donner un cadre théorique pour penser la Parole, son lieu d’origine et son mode d’action ainsi que sa dimension temporelle en tant que mode d’actualisation et de présence au monde. Les enjeux théoriques de l’ anthropologie de l’incarnation permettront de déployer une christologie trinitaire et de repenser à nouveaux frais le type de rapport au monde commandé par cette perspective sur l’incarnation. Puis, il s’agira de voir en quoi la parole trinitaire est incarnée dans l’Église, icône de la Trinité , et comment le projet de l’Église québécoise peut être nourri par ces perspectives, toujours dans l’horizon de la spécificité de l’incarnation du Verbe.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.048
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaval théologique et philosophiqueSame topicReligion, Gender, and EnlightenmentFrench-language works237,207