MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Phenomenology of Attention in Julian of Norwich’s<i>A Revelation of Love</i>

2014· article· en· W2128763963 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

VenueExemplaria · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Literature and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevelationPhenomenology (philosophy)EpistemologyPhilosophySightPsychoanalysisPsychologyTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Julian of Norwich’s A Revelation of Love develops a sophisticated phenomenology of attention. Understanding the key role that attention plays in Julian’s thought illuminates some of the most vexing questions that confront readers of her text, including her idiosyncratic adaptation of Augustine’s categories of bodily and spiritual sight. A Revelation of Love describes how Julian’s attention is turned and sustained, as well as distracted, by the phenomena that arise through the course of her revelations. In her reflections, she articulates both the anticipatory and retentive modalities of attention. She also acknowledges the limits of attention, particularly how pain can frustrate attempts to “pass over” the body. A Revelation of Love not only engages with contemporary philosophical and theological debates, but it can also help to historicize our understanding of both attention and phenomenology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.191 · 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