Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE LATIN WEST (HOENEN) In his autobiography, the British philosopher R. G. Collingwood argued that historical concepts and theories must be understood in relation to the context in which they were produced. They should not be taken according to our modern understanding, especially when our modern perceptions of them have been affected by developments that have radically changed their meaning. This is the case with the notions of philosophy and theology , which are today separated as a proximate result of the Enlightenment. For example, nowadays almost no one would think of theology as a branch of philosophy, whereas in the medieval period this was one of the accepted meanings of the term. Theology in this philosophical sense originated in Antiquity and was identified with metaphysics and cosmology, not as something based on divine revelation, as it is generally understood today. It was, in short, the science of first principles, like the movers of the heavenly bodies, which are the causes of change down on earth. Had theology therefore nothing to do with divine revelation? Of course it had. However, to appreciate the role of revelation in the medieval period, it is necessary to refer to a development in late antiquity that had an enormous impact on philosophy, namely the dissemination of Christianity in the intellectual culture of the time. To its adherents, Christianity was considered a form of wisdom superior to that of the Platonists, the Stoics, and the Epicureans. Important advocates for this early view were Origen and Augustine, who regarded it as a failure of those ancient schools that they looked only for a natural foundation for human knowledge. Human beings must, according to Origen and Augustine, be receptive to divine revelation. This advice was not new.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".