Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his defense of religion against its modern challengers, deniers, and despisers, Fackenheim regards questions concerning revelation and religious authority to be the two most essential issues affecting faith in the modern era. Is revelation plausible, or even possible? Is religious authority authentic? On what is it based? And is faith grounded in revelation and religious authority, or do they depend on faith? This last question is a matter of conceptual and existential priority. Fackenheim gives priority to faith, so the question becomes whether revelation and authority can be defended persuasively on the basis of faith. In Fackenheim’s theology, faith is the fundamental precondition for any access to truth. Contemporary thought, shaped by historicism, recognizes a certain latitude in the very notion of “faith,” so we must also ask what type of faith, religious or secular – polar opposites that historicism treats as equal, since they cannot disprove one another. Faced with this, Fackenheim must also defend the validity of religious faith as compared with secular faith.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".