Bibliographic record
Abstract
An adequate anthropology is an anthropology that sees each human being as a person. It reveals fully our complexity and the fascinating dignity of human beings. ‘Adequate anthropology’ is a term proposed by John Paul II and based on three sources: The Bible, theology, and philosophy. Generally speaking, its aim consists in the defense of a large and holistic concept of our existence in opposition to all contemporary reductionistic accounts. Developing an adequate anthropology enables us to discover the very truth about ourselves. While considering the results of scientific research, it never loses sight of revelation. It is through revelation that the Creator of our being gives us the best insights into ourselves. An adequate anthropology begins by reflecting on our existential situation, which is the splintering of God’s image in us, and ends with the incarnate Word as the model of a perfect personhood.
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 | 0.030 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
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".