Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the journey of faith almost everyone experiences times of spiritual desolation when our sense of God's presence is stripped away and our certainty about his faithfulness is deeply eroded. Times like this are intensely disorienting as they leave us grasping for answers, but even more importantly searching for a way forward. The literature of the Bible provides us with both experiential companionship and language to guide our journey through the desolate places of spiritual experience. The prayer language of exile offers us a paradigm for engaging with God in the midst of our experience of his absence. In particular the biblical book of Lamentations and a number of Psalms (44, 74, 79, 89, 102, 106 and 137) provide language that helped Israel express the depths of their suffering in the face of their exilic experience. The prayer language of exile is the language of God's absence. Through the language of exilic prayer we encounter the bold movements of lament, remembrance, reorientation, and hope. These acts of prayerful speech form the core of a spirituality of exile that sustained the ancient community and can offer nourishment to contemporary journeys of desolation as well.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".