Names of rhetoricians in the field of religion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is aimed at interpreting names and naming in relation to the founders of Christianity and to investigate theological figures who are a part of the cultural-spiritual heritage of the Primordial Church, by carrying out a biographical incursion into their lives. The saints described in this paper built Christianity by means of perfect synergy between fact and word, as their names have continued to exist across the centuries. In the present paper, we propose an inventory of some of the most important names of all time and their analysis from the perspective of onomastics. Thus, Eastern and Western Christianity meet through the common saints who act as patrons of their spirituality, testifying over the centuries to the fact that while the present may divide us, the past unites us. Christian rhetoricians enrich the word and the Church through their life and work, as vehicles through which creative grace is manifested. The corpus was taken from specialized studies, such as dictionaries of theology, biographies of saints, onomastic dictionaries. Methodologically, the paper employs precepts from the following fields: onomastics, theology, anthroponymy, cultural anthropology, the history of churches, rhetoric.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".