Bibliographic record
Abstract
Théologiquement, on ne peut réfléchir à la réconciliation sans revenir à Paul. 2 Co 5,11–6,2 et Rm 5,1-11 sont donc l’objet d’une lecture attentive (close reading) afin d’expliquer le fonctionnement de la métaphore de la réconciliation selon deux axes. 1/ Comment le contexte socio-politique du Ier siècle éclaire-t-il le quasi néologisme théologique paulinien ? 2/ Comment la manière de mettre en discours la réconciliation a-t-elle une portée théologique ? La réconciliation relève du vocabulaire politique, mais Paul la met en discours de sorte que l’énonciataire se sente concerné par l’histoire d’un Dieu qui, par la médiation du Christ, se réconcilie l’humanité, ou plutôt, « nous réconcilie avec lui ». Le vous auquel s’adresse le discours est comme aspiré par un récit qui se décline sous le mode d’un nous inclusif.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".