Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Figure: see text] In the Roman Catholic tradition, recent doctrinal reaffirmations of the gift of a common home, the beauty of cultural pluralism, and the splendour of truth expressed in Christianity and other world religions challenge theologians to look beyond natural degradation, mounting social conflict, and the pervasive loss of day-to-day religious cohesion to discern a renewed basis and horizon of transcendent hope. By developing an aesthetic context focused on the art theory exemplified in the work of Paul Gauguin, Käthe Kollwitz, and Wassily Kandinsky, this article elucidates the palate of psychic, affective, and intellectual responses that advise human participation in the dynamic and interrelated natural, social, and religious ecologies of world process. Reflecting on aesthetically contextualized and theologically guided engagements of contemporary philosophy, the essay continues to offer accounts of Bernard Lonergan’s post-Hegelian notion of sublation and Romano Guardini’s post-Heideggerian notion of polarity. It concludes by arguing that analogous contentions among the self-presence and encounter of aesthetic appreciation, the preserving and transforming moments of evolutionary process, and the uniquely particular and broadly idealized moments of cultural construction appear to collaborate as they draw the reader’s attention to a providential horizon enveloping world process and infusing its every dimension with hope.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.007 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".