MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905092220 · doi:10.1093/jts/fly144

Pilgrimage as Moral and Aesthetic Formation in Augustine’s Thought. By Sarah Stewart-Kroeker

2018· article· en· W2905092220 on OpenAlexaff
James Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Theological Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAugustinian Studies and Theology
Canadian institutionsSt. Stephen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilgrimageDepictionTheme (computing)BeautyPhilosophyHumanityRomanceAestheticsLiteratureArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theperegrinus of Augustine has been compared to Der Wanderer of Schubert’s song in his romantic discontent and yearning. In his Confessions to be an intelligence in time is to be inescapably unfinished, consistently in search. This yearning and this search are the theme of Sarah Stewart-Kroeker’s Pilgrimage as Moral and Aesthetic Formation in Augustine’s Thought, based on her doctoral dissertation. She presents the peregrinatio image as disclosing his central concerns and offers an account of peregrinatio as a process of moral–aesthetic formation made possible by desire for the beauty of Christ. Augustine’s vision of this formation emerges over time and is scattered across his works. Stewart-Kroeker draws its elements together to clarify and analyse. She begins in chapter 1 by describing the Plotinian sources of the peregrinatio image. Augustine’s christological commitments have been likened to those of Barth but she shows how they develop over time through an increasingly polemical depiction of ‘the Platonists’ and his departure from them. Chapter 2 presents Augustine’s account of Christ as bridging the ontological divide between humanity and God by being both way and home, via and patria.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueThe Journal of Theological StudiesSame topicAugustinian Studies and TheologyFrench-language works237,207