MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960429612 · doi:10.3138/tjt.2019-0040

Words about Sobering (Seventh to Ninth)

2019· article· en· W2960429612 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexey Ivanovich Sidorov

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoulPassionsHumilitySpiritualityHatredHarmDialogical selfPhilosophyPsychoanalysisSociologyAestheticsEpistemologyPsychologyTheologySocial psychologyLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a thematizing of sobriety as a characteristic of Christian spirituality through words or instructions from the monastic discourses of St. Theoleptos of Philadelphia, an influence on Gregory of Palamas. In this English rendition, with commentary notes, three of the discourses are arranged to bring soberness into focus. One treats humility of the mind with its associated virtues as a sobering trait in the soul’s movement toward expressing love for God. Spiritual reasoning is a component in perfecting humility by which the soul pushes forward to the Good. The second discourse in the arrangement is on falling away from the Good, safeguarding against the tyranny of passions that incur indebtedness to the devil. The third discourse is on the harm that can be done to a relationship and to one’s soul by thought, speech, and deeds. The discourse illustrates the harm through a quarrel between two sisters, degenerating from anger to hatred, to self-deceit, to spiritual illnesses, and hence an unhealthy disposition that is to be avoided in Christian living as the soul journeys forward.

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)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.228 · 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
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207