MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766177670 · doi:10.1163/15700682-12341427

Truth-Conditions and Religious Language: Introduction

2017· article· en· W2766177670 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Q. Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueMethod & Theory in the Study of Religion · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicStudy and Philosophy of Religion
Canadian institutionsMount Royal University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Semantics (computer science)GrammarEpistemologyPhilosophyAlethiologySet (abstract data type)LinguisticsLogical truthTruth valueTruth conditionPragmatic theory of truthSociologyCoherence theory of truthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction to the following set of papers: Lars Albinus, “A grammar of religious ‘truth’—pragmatic considerations on the nature of religious truth”; Terry F. Godlove, “Truth, meaning, and the study of religion”; G. Scott Davis, “Semantics and the study of religion”; Mark Q. Gardiner, “Why truth matters for the study of religion; a defense of a truth-conditional semantics”; Gabriel Levy, “Can fictional superhuman agents have mental states?”.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueMethod & Theory in the Study of ReligionSame topicStudy and Philosophy of ReligionFrench-language works237,207