Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of Friedrich Christoph Oetinger (1702-82) on Schelling’s work is even deeper than that exerted by Jakob Boehme, deeper, not because Schelling devoted more scholarly attention to Oetinger than he did to the study of Boehme (he did not), but because Schelling was very likely first introduced to Boehme, theosophy and Protestant mysticism by reading Oetinger. Both Schelling’s father and grandfather were pastors in the Wurtembergian Pietist tradition. Schelling most probably first read the works of Oetinger in his father’s study as a precautious boy eager to make his way in knowledge both natural and divine. Oetinger’s Biblical Dictionary ( Biblisches Worterbuch ), a compendium of theosophy and Biblical theology, was written for lay people as a study guide to the reading of Scripture, but this does not fairly describe it. Concerned as he was with a non-mechanistic philosophy of nature that would be not only consonant with Biblical revelation but also to some degree confirmative of it, Oetinger jammed the encyclopedia with natural scientific and esoteric and occult material one would not expect to find in such a text. It was likely a staple of Schelling’s catechetical education. At the age of ten, Schelling received an intense immersion in Oetinger’s theosophical pietism, when he was sent to live in Nurtingen while he attended Latin school. He lived for a time in the house of his uncle, who was known as a “fiery disciple of Oetinger’s.” Here he met Phillip Matheus Hahn, the most important follower of Oetinger’s, who impressed Schelling so deeply that the boy was inspired to compose his first poem on the occasion of the great theologian’s death.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".