Being Authentic about Authenticity: Opportunities, Requirements, Applications, and a Progress Report on Measurement of a Key Lonerganian Notion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bernard Lonergan has called for a methodical theology that differentiates those aspects of religion that are humanistic from those that are strictly theological, distinguishing social-science and denominational realms of inquiry. We believe that Lonergan’s notion of human authenticity is pivotal for the humanistic or social-science dimension. Hence, focusing on authenticity, we call for application of Lonergan’s thought beyond strictly theological topics, and we elaborate how social science could effectively deal with aspects of beliefs, ethics, and psychological and spiritual health, traditionally taken to be religious. Finally, we report on a project to operationalize authenticity—that is, to construct a psychometrically sophisticated questionnaire—as a means of making Lonergan’s thought accessible and useful to social-science practitioners and researchers. Bernard Lonergan a fait appel à une théologie méthodique qui différencie ces aspects de religion qui sont humanistes de ceux qui sont strictement théologiques, distinguant les secteurs d’enquêtes propres aux sciences sociales et confessionnelles. Nous croyons que la notion de Lonergan de ‘l’authenticité humaine’ est centrale aux dimensions humanistes ainsi qu’à celles des sciences sociales. De là, concentrant sur ‘l’authenticité’, nous faisons appel à l’application de la pensée de Lonergan au-delà des sujets strictement théologiques; et nous développons l’idée suivante: à savoir, comment les sciences sociales pourraient effectivement traiter des aspects de doctrine et d’éthique ainsi que ceux de santé psychologique et spirituelle—aspects qui traditionnellement ont été réservés exclusivement au domaine des réalités religieuses. Finalement, nous décrivons un projet qui met en pratique le concept de ‘l’authenticité humaine’ de Lonergan—c’est-à-dire, la construction d’un questionnaire scientifique à base de psychométrie à but de rendre la pensée de Lonergan accessible et utile aux praticien(ne)s et chargé(e)s de recherche en sciences sociales. 1
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".