Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Protestant ruling classes of the pre-First World War German Empire took for granted that Martin Luther was the greatest of all German men.In the early twentieth century, however, Luther came under attack from Catholics, liberals, and socialists, groups who became the governing coalition of the Weimar Republic after Germany's defeat in the First World War.Protestant conservatives struggled to win back power in the Weimar years -and one object of their battle was to restore the veneration of Martin Luther.Theological trend-setters after the war were dogmatic or systematic theologians.Whether men of the right like Karl Roll or men of the left like Karl Barth, they wanted to return to Luther's fundamental Reformation theology and to justification through faith alone.In the mid-19208, however, Barth saw the dangers of Lutheran theocentrism wedded to German nationalism and moved towards a more Reformed Christology and a greater critical distance from Luther.The other six major Weimar-era theologians discussed -Karl Roll, Friedrich Gogarten, Werner Elert, Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Erich Vogelsang -connected their theology to their Luther studies and to their hopes for the rebirth of Germany after the humiliation of the Versailles order.To differing degrees, they presented Martin Luther as the German saviour, and all except Karl Roll, who died in 1926, worked out specifically theological reasons for supporting Hitler when he came to power in 1933.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.917 | 0.886 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".