MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133823907 · doi:10.3138/tjt.3122

Augustine, Kierkegaard, and the Seduction of the Word: Rediscovering an Unfamiliar Theological Style

2015· article· en· W2133823907 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAugustinian Studies and Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRhetorical questionRhetoricScholarshipPhilosophyStyle (visual arts)Variety (cybernetics)TheologyLiteratureEpistemologyLinguisticsArtLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Lee Barrett's Eros and Self Emptying: The Intersections of Augustine and Kierkegaard draws a strong contrast between the “Augustine” whom Kierkegaard thought he knew and the Augustine we have come to know through recent scholarship. The dogmatic, speculative, non-rhetorical Augustine whom Kierkegaard rejected has come to be replaced by a rhetorical Augustine whose voice is adapted to a variety of audiences—an Augustine whose theological style is more similar to Kierkegaard than he ever knew. This realization enables Barrett to discover unforeseen intersections between these two Christian intellectuals, but none is more fundamental than their shared commitment to a form of theological rhetoric: one where what is most central is what transpires in the subjective experience of the reader or hearer rather than in the objective status of theological propositions. Barrett's work clears the way for similar assessments of other intellectuals.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.216 · 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