La visione ecologica nelle religioni orientali e nel cristianesimo: prospettive teologiche a confronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: The ecological crisis that our planet is suffering cannot be solved only by technical solutions and new economic strategies; what is needed is a new philosophical system in order to rethink human beings in their relationship with creation. To this end the world’s various religions can offer a fundamental contribution. Just as in the past, religion provided structure to ancient thought, so today a renewed ethical-religious vision could open new horizons for thought and praxis, so that human beings might rediscover their equilibrium within the entire cosmos. The present article intends to show how the different experiences of God proposed by the religious of East and West can guide various theologies to a new understanding of nature and a new image of man, so that our wounded planet might be wisely cared for and healed. Key words: ecology, ecological crisis, economy, philosophical system, creation, religions, religious ethics, religious anthropology, nature. Parole chiave: ecologia, crisi ecologica, economia, sistema filosofico, creato, religioni, etica religiosa, antropologia religiosa, natura.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".