Bibliographic record
Abstract
The discussion of eternity and time in the Christian tradition has been structurally controlled by the delineation of the issue as found in Greek philosophy. Plato in his Timaeus described the creation of time by the demiurge as the moving image of the eternal forms: "he resolved to have a moving image of eternity, and when he set in order the heavens, he made this image eternal but moving according to number, while eternity itself rests in unity, and this image we call time" (Timaeus, 37 d). In the beginning there was the eternal, immovable and immutable, and time is a part of that which is created movable and changing, imitating the eternal. Clearly, the relationship between that which is eternal and that which is in time is asymmetrical. Yet the eternal is defined by what it is not, by the via negative: time is moving; therefore, the eternal must be unmoving. This procedure of juxtaposing and contrasting the immovable, immutable and eternal to that which is in time became the standard approach to the God and time problem in Christian theology as well. Major Christian thinkers such as Augustine, Boethius and Aquinas adopted it. Opposing eternity to time led to the odd idea that the living God is timeless. Contemporary theologians have asserted that it seems incoherent to claim that a timeless God acts in time, even becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ. The problem arises from the refusal of traditional discussions to define eternity with reference to the particular life and movement of the triune God.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".