MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099973118 · doi:10.3917/ahdlm.077.0047

On angels and human beings : Did Thomas Aquinas succeed in demonstrating the existence of angels ?

2010· article· fr· W2099973118 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives d histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Philosophy and Science
Canadian institutionsBirds Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les seules preuves philosophiques de l’existence des substances séparées qui répondent aux exigences épistémologiques de Thomas sont des arguments aristotéliciens dont les conclusions, basées sur des prémisses d’une astronomie et une physique obsolètes, sont inacceptables. Thomas prit des distances à leur égard et, laissé sans alternative philosophique, proposa une série d’arguments théologiques dont la cohérence et valeur logique sont mis en question. Puisqu’il n’y a pas de preuve philosophique de l’existence des substances séparées, leur notion devrait être exclue du discours philosophique.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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