MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796270565 · doi:10.1017/s0017816018000068

Coleridge as Philosopher of Missions

2018· article· en· W2796270565 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen H. Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueHarvard Theological Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChristianityCriticismReflection (computer programming)Order (exchange)PhilosophyLiteratureHistoryEpistemologyArtReligious studiesComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coleridge directed his Aids to Reflection (1825, 1831) to young men preparing for Christian vocations, missionaries in particular, and planned, but did not write, a seventh supplementary essay, which may be reconstructed from Coleridge's œuvres, to correct what he thought was inadequate preparation. Missionaries are educators whose preparation must include scientific biblical criticism: Christianity evolves with culture generally. Anthropography is required in order to foster inter-cultural exchange, including insight into a tradition's metaphors. Missionaries engage in proselytism, insists Coleridge, in the strictly limited sense of conversion through the exemplary conduct of the missionary as a fully realized human being.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.239 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHarvard Theological ReviewSame topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207