MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321827776 · doi:10.4314/actat.v35i2.5

Beyond “two source theory” and “sola scriptura”: ecumenical perspectives on scripture and tradition

2016· article· en· W2321827776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rodney Moss

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Theologica · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevelationProtestantismInterpretation (philosophy)ConstitutionPhilosophyTheologyReligious studiesLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major source of doctrinal dispute between Catholicism and Protestantism over the centuries has revolved around the relationship between Scripture and Tradition. Does Scripture as the source of Revelation stand alone as in sola scriptura or does Scripture need to be interpreted and understood within the tradition from which it emerged and by which it should be understood. The Constitution, Dei Verbum, promulgated by the Second Vatican Council and the two Protestant Conferences held almost contemporaneously at Oberlin and Montreal suggest a possible convergence beyond the impasse. Protestantism needs to acknowledge the importance of tradition in biblical interpretation while Catholicism having effectively abandoned the two source theory of revelation needs criteria to distinguish between authentic tradition closely linked to scripture and an inauthentic tradition.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.019
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa TheologicaSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207