Концепция «Индивидуальная природа» в христологии Леонтия Византийского
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author examines the idea of an individual nature as conceived by Leontius of Byzantium, a defender of the Council of Chalcedon, who used it to counter the arguments of the Monophysites, who themselves developed the notion of a partial nature (substance). The author further attempts to define the influence which Leontius exerted over the formulation of a new concept of hypostasis as conceived by the Diophysites. In order to study this point in detail, the author examines the later work of Leontius, especially his Epilisis. By means of a thorough analysis of this work, he reveals the intention of Leontius to perfect the terminology of the Diophysites by stating the fundamental problem in philosophical terms. In this work, Leontius demonstrates that the idea of a self-sufficient hypostasis in the humanity of Christ is absent and shows that the idea of a hypostasis of this type is found only in Christ as the Logos. The author concludes that the human nature of Christ may be considered as a type of general nature and as a result it may be seen to relate to all other hypostases of human nature as the general to the particular in so much as there exists a real hypostatic unity with the Logos
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".