Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article s’intéresse à la façon dont la théologie processuelle permet de réfléchir à la représentation de Dieu. En effet, le récit de Gn 2 pose la question du présupposé que tout un chacun porte sur Dieu. Loin d’être une réponse toute faite, une et certaine, la théologie processuelle propose de partir à la rencontre d’un Dieu qui s’offre et qui offre un monde en devenir à l’humain. Pour mieux cerner la pertinence d’une analyse processuelle de ce récit, l’article s’intéresse à certaines questions clefs de la théologie qui la sous-tend. Celles-ci portent sur le libre arbitre de l’humain, l’omniscience et la toute-puissance de Dieu, la question du pôle primordial de Dieu comme pôle transcendant, et celle de son pôle conséquent comme signe de son immanence. L’article montre que le récit est une proposition offerte au lecteur de construire sa propre représentation de Dieu, non dans un postulat figé, mais dans un mouvement à-venir, toujours en train de se créer.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".