MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250191862 · doi:10.3138/tjt.27.2.267

Miracles, Divine Agency, and the Laws of Nature

2011· article· en· W4250191862 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Robert Larmer

Bibliographic record

VenueToronto Journal of Theology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Philosophy of Evil
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)EpistemologyOddsPhilosophyNatural lawDivine lawLawPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: I have two goals in this paper. The first is to locate the concept of miracles within a broad model of divine agency. I shall argue that the concept is properly located in what may be termed a supernaturalist model of divine agency, in which miracles are understood as events produced by a supernatural agent intervening upon the usual course of nature. My second goal is to argue that the concept of miracles is in no way at odds with science. Specifically, I shall argue that miracles, understood as events produced by a supernatural agent overriding the usual course of nature, imply no violation of the laws of nature, and thus belief in them should not be viewed as unscientific.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToronto Journal of TheologySame topicTheology and Philosophy of EvilFrench-language works237,207