MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3118435808 · doi:10.25167/so.1856

Mother of Hope. Mary of Nazareth in Anglican – Roman-Catholic Dialogue

2020· article· en· W3118435808 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pablo Blanco, Marcin Lech

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Oecumenica · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDoctrinePresentation (obstetrics)HistoryReligious studiesClassicsSociologyLawTheologyPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our Hope is Christ but His Mother is also ours. A difficult topic in the dialogue with Anglicans is the issue of Mariology. Mary and the various forms of liturgical and non-liturgical Marian devotion were inherited by Anglicans from the Catholic tradition. However, the influence of the Reformation has also had an impact on this topic. Hence, paradoxically, Mariology links and -at the same time- constitutes an element of polemics between Anglicans and Catholics. The Anglican doctrine about Mary of Nazareth mentions the term “complexion oppositorum”. The ecumenical Dialogue has shown us its present situation, as we can read in these pages. The authors, after presenting a historical introduction, made a presentation of all existing ecumenical documents being the fruit of Catholic-Anglican dialogue, in which there was any mention of the Mother of God. Documents at international level as well as documents from national dialogues, in particular from the USA and Canada, have been analysed.

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)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia Oecumenica→Same topicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics→French-language works237,207→