MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114692900 · doi:10.1017/jlr.2014.35

CHRISTIAN PRACTICE AS THE FOUNDATION FOR MODERN POLITICAL THEOLOGY

2015· article· en· W2114692900 on OpenAlexaff
Athanasios Giocas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law and Religion · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrthodoxyPoliticsArchbishopSovereigntyPolitical theologyState (computer science)DominionTheologyPhilosophyCatholic theologyReligious studiesLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the twentieth century, the Orthodox Christian diaspora played a critical role in the development of modern Orthodox theology. Forced to take up residence in the West, major figures like Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1944), Georges Florovsky (1893–1979), Vladimir Lossky (1903–1958), and Alexander Schmemann (1921–1983) successfully reinvigorated Orthodox theology for succeeding generations. Their works have become the standard readings in theological faculties and seminaries the world over. But despite the durable and multifaceted heritage of modern Orthodox theology, contemporary Orthodox Christians have been, for the most part, rather timid in thoroughly engaging themselves with matters political. Notable exceptions include Nicolas Berdyaev (1874–1948), who provides a far-reaching critique of both state sovereignty and the Orthodox Church's historic role in supporting worldly realms of authority. For his part, Bulgakov offers some penetrating insights in favor of the separation of church and state in the very brief chapter devoted to this topic, “Orthodoxy and the State,” in his classic treatise, The Orthodox Church . Somewhat later in the twentieth century, the few noteworthy authors who have much more specifically engaged with broader political questions include the current archbishop of Albania, Anastasios Yannoulatos, and arguably the most important Orthodox political philosopher today, Christos Yannaras.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law and ReligionSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207