Bibliographic record
Abstract
This volume represents a shift into a new, higher gear for the journal.Our original idea was to provide a forum for taking seriously the view of macrodynamic analysis that is Lonergan's fundamental achievement: the initial definition of a collaborative division of labour in theology.The restriction of that division of labour to theology has been lifted in various ways in the past thirty years.The artificiality of it was noted by Karl Rahner in 1970: "Lonergan's theological methodology seems to me so general that it applies equally to all sciences, and so is not a method of theology as such but a general method of science illustrated by examples from theology." 1 Lonergan himself indicated this broader reach when he wrote of a functional specialized 'integrated studies' in which "the possibility of each integration is a method that runs parallel to the method in theology" (Method 364).Terrance Quinn's article, "Reflections on Progress in Mathematics," in volume three of this journal is a good example of how this parallel method can begin outside of theology.2 From the onset we had in mind this broader conception of method and the first three volumes of the journal reflected this, if somewhat eccentrically.A strategy of deliberate diversity prevailed: "Let 1 Karl Rahner, "Kritishe Bemerkungen zu B.J.F.Lonergan's Aufsatz: 'Functional Specialties in Theology'," Gregorianum 51 (1970): 537.["Die theologishe Methodologie Lonergan's scheint mir so generish zu sein, dass sie eigenlick auf jede Wisssenschaft passt, also keine Methodologie der Theologie als solcher ist, sondern nur eine allgemeinste Methodologie von Wissenschaft uberhaupt, mit biespielen aus der Theologie illustriert."] 2 JMDA 3, 97-116.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.009 |
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".