Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body and soul constitute one of the original binary oppositions in Judeo-Christian / Western culture.For centuries, it lay at the heart of Christian teaching that promoted the distinction between the morally inferior body and the transcendent soul.Peter Moogk identified this irreconcilable duality between the spirit and the flesh as one of the fundamental aspects of the Christianity of New France that succeeding generations inherited.This belief required a person to suppress the temptations of the body and the material world. 1 As the folklorist Barbara Leblanc argues, in Québec Catholicism this traditional Christian distinction between body and soul meant that the Church's fundamental concern was always to save the latter.Endowed with divine reason and purpose, and guided by Christian teaching, people need to arrive at judgments of good and evil in order to save their immortal souls.In the contest between the body and the soul, Christians must master and even deny their morally dangerous physical natures and resist the temptation to surrender to their passions, because the Devil -the incarnation of evil -inspires their carnal desires. 2 Indeed, the answer to the fifth question in the catechism of 1888, approved for use in the ecclesiastical provinces of Québec, Montréal, and Ottawa, unambiguously told late-nineteenth-century Catholic children that the soul is superior to the body.If a choice has to be made between the welfare of the soul and that of the body, then the choice must be made in favour of the soul.3 The Church warned that the temptations of the physical world came in many forms and had various guises and taught the faithful to be aware that the body reacts to sensual stimulation, while the soul controls the higher spiritual powers of intelligence and will.The clergy therefore considered that they had constantly to be on the watch for the machinations of Satan and were duty bound to keep a close eye on the behaviour of the faithful.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.682 | 0.486 |
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".