MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205263327 · doi:10.3917/nrt.441.0105

Peut-on parler d’« inversion trinitaire » ? Une question disputée entre Balthasar et Rahner (1)

2021· article· fr· W4205263327 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques Servais

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelle revue théologique · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedieval Philosophy and Theology
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pour Karl Rahner comme pour Hans Urs von Balthasar, la « Trinité immanente » ne peut être connue que par la « Trinité économique ». Mais les deux théologiens s’opposent sur la taxis trinitaire. Pour Rahner, il importe de garantir la transcendance de Dieu vis-à-vis du monde. Pour Balthasar, Trinité immanente et Trinité économique ne se laissent pas purement et simplement reconduire à une logique abstraite unidimensionnelle. L’expression dans le monde du Dieu d’amour kénotique conduit à reconnaître une « inversion trinitaire » dans l’ordre économique des personnes divines.

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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelle revue théologiqueSame topicMedieval Philosophy and TheologyFrench-language works237,207