MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171190344 · doi:10.1017/s0034412502006157

Time and time again: two volumes by William Lane Craig William Lane Craig <i>The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination</i>. Synthese Library Volume 293. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000). Pp. v+287. £78.00 (Hbk). ISBN 0792366344. William Lane Craig <i>The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination</i>. Synthese Library Volume 294. (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000). Pp. v+256. £65.00 (Hbk). ISBN 0792366352.

2002· article· en· W2171190344 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Helm

Bibliographic record

VenueReligious Studies · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhilosophy and Theoretical Science
Canadian institutionsRegent College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExposition (narrative)CLARITYStrengths and weaknessesPhilosophySeries (stratigraphy)EpistemologyClassicsSociologyHistoryArtLiteratureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The two books make a notable contribution in drawing together many of the philosophical problems about time, and the associated literature. The expositions are also valuable for their interdisciplinary strengths, especially in the history and philosophy of science and (to a lesser extent) in theology, and for the clarity and thoroughness of Craig's approach. However, the two books do not present, as might at first appear, a side by side exposition of the respective strengths and weaknesses of the A-series and the B-series views of time. They are, rather, one interconnected defence of the A-series view. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of Craig's exposition and defence of the A-series view are noted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReligious StudiesSame topicPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceFrench-language works237,207