MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076716984 · doi:10.3138/tjt.16.1.39

Who Do You Say That I Am? Reflections on Christology after the Shoah

2000· article· en· W2076716984 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maureena Fritz

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristologyCovenantThe HolocaustRepentanceJudaismTheologyPhilosophyJesus christReligious studiesSociologyFaith

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1980, Pope John Paul II talked to official representatives of the Jewish community in Mainz about the covenant with the Jewish people "which has never been revoked." The notion of the "covenant never revoked" is referred to again in the Vatican "Notes" of 1985, and frequently since then. This article concerns itself with integrating the new teaching of the "covenant with the Jewish people never revoked" into a comprehensive Christian view of the world. Such an integration into explicit Church teaching entails a paradigm shift as well as repentance and teshuvah. First, I will discuss paradigm shifts and the process of teshuvah, and then I will look at different paradigms wherein Jesus Christ is presented in a range of worldviews ranging from an exclusive Christology in which there is salvation in no other name to theocentric paradigms that attempt to include "the other," that is, the nonbaptized. I will conclude with suggestions for future action. Since the Shoah, and with the publication of Nostra Aetate

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0470.049
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0070.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207