MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199831348 · doi:10.82308/54251

God, world and humanity : an investigation into the work of Gordon D. Kaufman

2005· article· en· W3199831348 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mark Henderson

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBiblical Studies and Interpretation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsHumanityWork (physics)PhilosophySociologyEnvironmental ethicsTheologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study the apparent conflicts between the concept of nature and the concept of God, and the relationship between the concept of God and the concept of world provide the basis for analysing how Gordon D. Kaufman reformulates the concept of God. For Kaufman the concepts of world and nature are religiously relevant insofar as they call for a theology for our contemporary life centred in this world rather than in some metaphysical beyond. This study examines how Kaufman articulates a concept of God that is not necessarily bound by the traditions of a particular religion, but also whether he offers a concept of God for the so-called 'secular' modern world. Chapter one examines how Kaufman conceives of the difference between world and nature. Chapter two relates the analysis of these concepts to the concept of God as well as Kaufman's treatment of revelation in light of his attempts to reconstruct the concept of God. Chapter three considers some of Kaufman's recent suggestions for reformulating the concept of God that take into account the relativist and historicist perspectives.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.030
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicBiblical Studies and InterpretationFrench-language works237,207