Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no denying that the early Catholic Church grew up in a climate predominated by a rich and broad religious pantheon. Emerging at first as a perceived outgrowth of Judaism, Christianity was exposed to, among other things, Roman culture. Roman religious practice, which was typically very open to adopting foreign cults, felt threatened by Christianity, resulting in periods of persecution. As a result, the early Christian community had a very complicated relationship with Imperial Rome. The Church stressed non-collaboration, but evidence points that there was a divide between teachings and practice on the topic of military service. The patristic writings of the Early Church fathers are noticeably sparse until Ambrose and Augustine, who present what can generally be called a theory of just war. They also waver between support and condemnation, reflecting the needs of their congregations. Despite this relative absence of discussion, the prevailing attitude in the historical scholarship of the Early Church was that the pre-Constantine Church pushed for non-collaboration with Roman society, i.e. not serving in public office or the army. After Constantine, that same scholarship points towards an about-face in Church teachings, and a co-opting of the burgeoning Christian community. What this paper seeks to address is that Roman iustum bellum, and Christian just war, were developments specific to their contemporary societies and, while there is definitely a link, the two form distinct systems of thought. One might even say that iustum bellum was more concerned with justifying war, than the moral quandaries of Christian just war.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".