Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comme le notait Karl Rahner, de l’avenir de la théologie «nous ne savons pas grand’chose, en fait presque rien». Des indices nombreux, dont témoignent un nombre important d’ouvrages récents, nous rappellent toutefois que depuis quelques années la théologie se trouve en situation de crise qui ne laisse intact aucun de ses champs traditionnels et qui remet en question son identité. Devant l’ampleur de la tâche, la tentation est grande de se replier à l’intérieur du bastion ecclésial et de se retirer de l’espace public, pluraliste et séculier, ou, à l’autre extrême, de céder aux chantres d’une transformation de la théologie en «science religieuse», apparemment plus adaptée aux exigences contemporaines de l’objectivité et de la rigueur scientifiques. Il faut récuser vigoureusement ces deux scénarios. L’avenir de la théologie ne peut être assuré que si elle accepte d’inscrire clairement et vigoureusement son travail non sur un horizon ecclésial, mais sur l’horizon du monde et de faire vraiment de la question de Dieu sa question directrice, c’est-à-dire de l’accepter vraiment comme question.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".