MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W432903357 · doi:10.51644/obbk6395

Augustine contra Cicero: evaluation, affirmation, and the freedom of the will

2007· article· en· W432903357 on OpenAlexaff
Darren Dahl

Bibliographic record

VenueConsensus · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAugustinian Studies and Theology
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCiceroPhilosophyComputer scienceClassicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cicero] restricts the mind of the religious man to a choice between two alternatives: either there is something which lies within the power of our own will, or there is foreknowledge of the future.He considers that these statements cannot both be true, and that to affirm one of them is to deny the other.…Thus, because he wished to make men free, he made them ungodly.The religious mind, however, chooses both, confesses both, and confirms both by the faith of godliness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.030
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConsensusSame topicAugustinian Studies and TheologyFrench-language works237,207