MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133921135 · doi:10.7202/010347ar

La théologie pratique peut-elle être apophatique ?

2005· article· fr· W2133921135 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Marcel Viau

Bibliographic record

VenueLaval théologique et philosophique · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Linguistic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article représente la première d’une série d’études sur la possibilité d’envisager la théologie pratique sous l’angle de l’apophatisme. La thèse à l’origine de cette entreprise repose sur l’affirmation que tout discours théologique devrait être en mesure de produire un effet sur nos contemporains. Dès lors, il faut entendre le langage comme un processus plutôt que comme un substrat. Ce point de vue est repris avec une certaine urgence depuis une cinquantaine d’années à la suite de ce qu’il est convenu d’appeler le « Linguistic Turn ». Une mise en lumière des enjeux que soulève cette démonstration peut se faire en établissant un lien entre certains développements du second Wittgenstein et la compréhension de la voie négative telle qu’elle se présente chez les auteurs anciens.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaval théologique et philosophiqueSame topicHistorical and Linguistic StudiesFrench-language works237,207