MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Justification and Sanctification in the Oxford Movement

2017· book· en· W2780242452 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Erb

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicReformation and Early Modern Christianity
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSanctificationProtestantismDoctrinePhilosophyClassicsTheologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issues concerning justification and sanctification, related primarily to the doctrine of forensic justification in the continental Protestant Reformation, were mediated somewhat in the Thirty-Nine Articles, and gained a renewed importance for the Oxford Movement with the publication of John Henry Newman’s Lectures on Justification in 1838 and E. B. Pusey’s preface to his fourth edition of his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford (1840) and above all his Justification (1853). By the 1860s, particularly in the debate over Pusey’s Enchiridion, Pusey and Newman had concluded their debate as for the most part an ‘abstract’ one. Both men’s approaches were firmly rejected by the Evangelical wing of the Anglican tradition.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.023
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.163 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicReformation and Early Modern Christianity→French-language works237,207→