Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have inherited an uneasy legacy of tension, in the East and West, between “fact” and “fiction,” between objective history and our many relative and subjective “stories,” between art as the representation of reality and faith based on the Word of God. Depending on how this tension has been “read” and “written” into action, our civilizations in the past have produced beauty or horror, high culture or blind prejudice. But while we may have inherited “facts” like these from the past, our future can only be created by the power of the imagination to believe, by the spiritual force of our lives which material civilization calls “fictions.” As Bahá’ís and believers in the cycle of Divine Unity, we have inherited a weighty responsibility to resolve this tension creatively and our common future, as a dynamic, diverse, and spiritual civilization, depends on it. The task of distinguishing “fact” from “fiction” in an age of maturity is a shared one. The question that must shape our words and deeds at the present hour, therefore, is not only who will write the future but also who will read it.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".