MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376465808 · doi:10.35974/koinonia.v13i2.2652

A Historical-Theological Survey on the Heavenly Sanctuary Existence

2021· article· en· W4376465808 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueJurnal Koinonia · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicContemporary Christian Leadership and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsDoctrineInterpretation (philosophy)PhilosophyPeriod (music)TheologyHistoryEpistemologyReligious studiesAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of Christians doubt the existence of the heavenly sanctuary. They think that its reality is unreasonable and has no sound biblical evidence. Some scholars argue that this is an isolated doctrine in the Seventh-day Adventists that has no parallel in the Christian doctrine in the past. This paper attempts to highlight the concept of the heavenly sanctuary in history. Using the documentary research model and analyzing the data by historical-theological approach, this research concludes that heavenly sanctuary existence is not an isolated doctrine in Christian history. There are periods of acceptance and rejection of its existence. The reason for the rejection in the past was the acceptance of the dualistic concept and allegorical interpretation among Christians. This article’s purpose is to provide a survey on the development of understanding about heavenly sanctuary from the pre-biblical period to the current days.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.091 · 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