MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087960245 · doi:10.1177/0021140007082163

Christology and the Jewish-Christian Dialogue: A Personal Theological Journey

2007· article· en· W2087960245 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John T. Pawlikowski

Bibliographic record

VenueIrish Theological Quarterly · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristologyMessiahMagisteriumProclamationJudaismTheologyPhilosophyReligious studiesTorahLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian theologian Gregory Baum has argued that chapter four of Vatican II's Nostra Aetate represents the most radical reformulation of the church's ordinary magisterium to emerge from the Council. He is correct. For this chapter on the Church's Relationship to the Jewish People undercut an understanding of that relationship that had persisted since patristic times. In the classical understanding the Church is presented as replacing the Jewish People in the covenantal relationship with God because of the supposed Jewish responsibility for murdering Jesus the Messiah. Traditional Christological proclamation in the Church was very closely connected with this reversal in covenantal membership. Hence the fundamental change of perception on the part of the Council regarding the Church's relationship with Judaism poses a fundamental challenge. If Jews are now to be seen as remaining in a covenantal relationship with God after Christ, then Christological statement today needs significant reformulation. But it must be a reformulation that protects a continued universal dimension for the actions of Christ.

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)0.004
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 score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0360.088
Scholarly communication0.0150.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrish Theological QuarterlySame topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207