MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379145219 · doi:10.1163/27725472-09402005

Luke 22:36 and Hsiao’s Libertarian ‘Theology’ of Gun Ownership

2023· article· en· W4379145219 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Barrigar

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œEvangelical quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWar, Ethics, and Justification
Canadian institutionsSt. Peter's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)TheologyGun controlLawPhilosophyPolitical scienceSociologyLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Christian philosopher Timothy Hsiao has recently provided in this journal a defence of gun ownership and public gun carrying. I will respond with an argument against gun ownership for self-defence. In particular I will argue that Hsiao’s argument misuses Scripture, fails to employ a range of important theological categories, and leads to increased harms. I argue these failings occur because Hsiao’s fundamental objective is not to seek a Kingdom of God theology of guns but rather to defend a libertarian social vision. In effect, his thin theology is really a veneer for a libertarian defence of guns and gun culture, whereas I argue that a Kingdom of God theology seeks to provide a safer society and thus would move society away from gun culture.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œEvangelical quarterlySame topicWar, Ethics, and JustificationFrench-language works237,207