MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309363326 · doi:10.3917/rspt.1062.0289

Quelle espérance pour la création abusée ?

2022· article· fr· W4309363326 on OpenAlex
Emmanuel Durand

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAugustinian Studies and Theology
Canadian institutionsDominican University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La création physique peut-elle être sujet d’espérance ? Quelle est l’aspiration de la création matérielle et que signifie-t-elle pour les croyants ? Écouter le cri de la Terre et le « gémissement de la création » dévoile nos péchés systémiques contre elles. En prenant appui sur la Lettre aux Romains , il est toutefois possible d’entendre aujourd’hui la plainte de la création, pas tant comme une accusation que comme un Évangile ; à savoir une heureuse annonce et un appel à la conversion. La création et nous, nous partageons la même espérance de la gloire. Le cri de la création, qui dénonce nos péchés contre elle, est aussi paradoxalement un témoignage de notre aspiration commune vers la gloire filiale, selon l’argument de Paul en Romains 8. L’issue de cette espérance est avant tout suspendue à la fidélité de Dieu. Relier la plainte de la création au cri du Fils de Dieu dans notre chair confirme la solidité d’une telle espérance de la gloire.

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)0.003
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 categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.132 · 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