MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334428609 · doi:10.1177/0953946811435386

The Future of Theological Ethics: Response to Christopher Insole

2012· article· en· W2334428609 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Gibbs

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Christian Ethics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyMoralityPerspective (graphical)JudaismEpistemologyFocus (optics)Moral philosophyNormative ethicsSociologyTheologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I shift the focus from questions of rational theology to questions of law and interrogate the nature of ethics from the perspective of Jewish philosophy. The key critical issues for criticising Kant’s philosophy will be the separation of ethics and law and the reduction of the sollen of morality to a kind of necessity. Nonetheless, I suggest that Jewish thinkers will follow Kant in thinking about God first from the perspective of practical philosophy.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.013
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0240.052
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Christian EthicsSame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207