MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566534381 · doi:10.1163/17455197-01402006

A Response to Porter and Pitts’ ‘Wright’s Critical Realism in Context’

2016· article· en· W2566534381 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for the Study of the Historical Jesus · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWrightContext (archaeology)Critical realism (philosophy of perception)PhilosophyRealismEpistemologyNew TestamentHistoryTheologyArt historyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 13 (2015) Stanley Porter and Andrew Pitts contributed an article in which they sought to situate N.T. Wright’s critical realism in its philosophical context. Although they correctly identify the philosophical context for this critical realism as the work of Bernard Lonergan, particularly as mediated for New Testament studies by Ben F. Meyer, this response will argue that they fail to adequately address the Lonerganian context. Reasons will be identified for this failure. An effort to better, albeit succinctly, present the rudiments of Lonergan’s critical realism will round out the article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for the Study of the Historical JesusSame topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207