MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897622222 · doi:10.3138/tjt.2018-0075

The Biblical Idea of Creation and Its Ethical Interpretation in the Philosophy of Levinas

2018· article· en· W2897622222 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Branko Klun

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyLogos Bible SoftwareInterpretation (philosophy)RealmPhilosophySubject (documents)OntologyEternityMeaning (existential)Relation (database)SociologyTheologyComputer scienceLinguisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Figure: see text] Levinas provides an original interpretation of the biblical idea of creation ex nihilo, which goes beyond the traditional understanding in terms of divine power and fabrication. In the first part, this article presents the challenge that the idea of creation poses to traditional logic and ontology by referring to Maimonides’s advocacy of creation in opposition to Aristotle’s assumption of the eternity of the world. Levinas repeats Maimonides’s gesture by enlarging the notion of logos and transposing the idea of creation from the ontological realm to the ethical domain of interpersonal relations. In the second part, it shows how Levinas subjects the idea of creation to a phenomenological reduction, tracing its representational content back to the paradoxical experience of “createdness” within the subject itself. The original meaning of creation is to be sought in relation to the ethical call of the other (person), and within the subject’s passive condition qua responsibility. In this way, the initially religious idea of creation receives a broader philosophical significance as it draws upon a common human experience.

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)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.059
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207