MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526448666 · doi:10.3138/jrpc.28.1.3150

Flight, Emmanuel Levinas, and the Critique of Theodicy

2016· article· en· W2526448666 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel J. Fleming

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Religion and Popular Culture · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheodicyConsciousnessPhilosophyCharacter (mathematics)EpistemologyPresentation (obstetrics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyzes the 2012 Paramount Pictures film Flight for the various theodicies that the film presents. It does so alongside the twentieth-century philosopher Emmanuel Levinas's critique of theodicy and suggests that Flight provides illustrations of what Levinas sees as the problem with theodicies, namely that they work to relativize the unconditional call to responsibility that sits at the heart of human consciousness. The article analyzes such examples in detail and does so alongside a presentation of Levinas's philosophy and his critiques of theodicy. Furthermore, the article suggests that the closing scenes of Flight present what is a moment of anti-theodicy, according to the philosophy of Levinas, whereby the main character embraces his responsibility and thereby exemplifies an ethical freedom. Readers of this article should note that it deals with all of the aspects of the film's plot and so will spoil the ending for anyone who has not seen it.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.029
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Religion and Popular CultureSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207