Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1930s, neo-orthodoxy has been a major theological trajectory in worldwide Presbyterianism, alongside the Reformed orthodoxy of the Westminster Confession of Faith and a theological liberalism (informed by theologies of liberation) that interprets Scripture and traditional church teaching to advance a progressive social and political program. While neo-orthodoxy historically refers to a broader theological movement, the Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth became its leading exponent (although he rejected the label), and his monumental Church Dogmatics strongly influenced twentieth-century Presbyterian confessions, especially the Confession of 1967 in the United States, and the Confession of Belhar in South Africa. Nevertheless, Barthian theology never became the dominant theological influence among Presbyterians denominations worldwide, nor has it succeeded in mediating between Reformed Orthodoxy and theological liberalism. In the United States, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America hold exclusively to the Westminster Standards, as do many Presbyterian churches founded by North American missionary efforts in other parts of the world. Theological liberalism continues to be dominant in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A), the Scottish Presbyterian Church, and the United Church of Canada. Barth’s theology nevertheless remains influential and interacts with other theologies today in new and fruitful ways.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".