MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291017803 · doi:10.12775/bpth.2022.009

“In principio”: The Metaphysical Exegesis of John 1:1 by Albert the Great, Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas

2022· article· pl· W4291017803 on OpenAlex
Andrea Nannini, Marcin Trepczyński

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblica et Patristica Thoruniensia · 2022
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNarodowym Centrum Nauki
KeywordsTheologyPhilosophyExegesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

„In principio”: metafizyczna egzegeza J 1,1 Alberta Wielkiego, Bonawentury i Tomasza z Akwinu
 Artykuł przedstawia interpretacje słów „in principio” (Jan 1,1) zaproponowane przez Alberta Wielkiego, Bonawenturę i Tomasza z Akwinu w ich komentarzach do Ewangelii wg św. Jana. Ujęcia tych autorów różnią się. Albert używa pojęć pierwszej zasady oraz intelektu, który działa powszechnie i wytwarza swoje światło. Bonawentura buduje swoją interpretację na Augustyńskim rozróżnieniu między początkiem bez początku i początkiem z początku. Akwinata tworzy zaś ramę pojęciową opartą na teoriach metafizycznych. Wszystkie te ujęcia ujawniają metafizyczny charakter dokonanej przez tych autorów egzegezy pierwszego zdania Janowej Ewangelii. Owo metafizyczne nastawienie umożliwiło im zastosowanie zaawansowanych pojęć i stanowi jeden z powodów, by ich egzegezę określić jako “analityczną”.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.774
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · 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