MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750779726 · doi:10.1093/jts/flx177

Engaging the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit: Love and Gift in the Trinity and the Church. By Matthew Levering

2017· article· en· W2750779726 on OpenAlex
Graham Tomlin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Theological Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPneumatologyPhilosophyDoctrineTheologyConversationArgument (complex analysis)Face (sociological concept)Church Fathers

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is a rigorously researched, densely argued, and robust defence of Western (especially Catholic) approaches to the theology of the Holy Spirit. In particular, it focuses on the naming of the Spirit as both Love and Gift, offering an apologia for privileging these names for the Spirit over any other, argued both on biblical grounds and in terms of the Trinitarian relations. In the course of the argument Levering has to face the charge that using the term ‘Love’ for the Spirit might seem to identify the Spirit with the divine essence of Love, leaving the question of what that says about the Father and the Son, and also the oft-repeated charge that ‘Gift’ implies subordination. The book reverts to Augustine repeatedly, yet even more so to Thomas Aquinas, so much so that the book is effectively a presentation and defence of Aquinas’s pneumatology in conversation with a number of ancient and more modern theologians.

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.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.195 · 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