MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2598056461 · doi:10.3138/tjt.2016-0010

A New Kant on Religion?

2017· article· en· W2598056461 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen T. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWar, Ethics, and Justification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyChristianityPhilosophy of religionInterpretation (philosophy)EpistemologyFocus (optics)TheologyReligious studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years certain scholars have argued that the philosophy of Immanuel Kant is much more open to religion in general and Christianity in particular than was previously believed. A focus of this approach is the forthcoming Kant and the Question of Religion, edited by Christ Firestone, Nathan Jacobs, and James Joiner (Cambridge University Press). The present article resists the “new wave” interpretation of Kant on religion. It argues that Kant's religious views are incompatible with Christianity, as that religion is standardly understood.

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)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.023
Scholarly communication0.0060.009
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicWar, Ethics, and JustificationFrench-language works237,207