Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article réfléchit sur la transmission comme défi central et transversal de la théologie pratique. Certaines controverses multidisciplinaires concernant la transmission y sont examinées, dans le but de dégager des pistes qui permettraient de réfléchir de façon féconde en théologie. Il s’agit de reprendre à nouveaux frais la question de la transmission, assez disqualifiée dans les milieux théologiques et pastoraux présentement, au nom des défis d’une « nouvelle évangélisation », d’une catéchèse de la proposition, ou de la vision de l’éducation de la foi comme accompagnement, communication, etc. Certes pertinents, ces discours, réflexions et pratiques gagneraient, nous semble-t-il, à ne pas purement et simplement reléguer le concept de transmission dans une logique de reproduction ou de relation enseignant-enseigné.
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 | 0.023 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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".