Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The Authority of Tradition When attempting to determine the justice and limitations of particular wars, Catholics look not only to the Bible, but also to Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, and other prominent thinkers whose judgements have contributed to the "just war tradition."When judging the merits of particular acts of warfare, leading theologians in the Catholic tradition have both appealed to the authority of their predecessors to support their own conclusions, and been appealed to in turn by their successors.1This recourse to tradition is in full agreement with the authoritative status that traditional Church teaching holds within Catholic theology and ethics.The Anabaptist reformers of the sixteenth-century, however, summarily rejected the authority of Catholic tradition as a basis for establishing right doctrine and ethics.Reading the Biblical texts divorced from the authoritative commentary of the Church fathers, they zealously adopted Martin Luther' s sola scriptura position as the foundation for their theology and their behaviour.As participants in what has come to be known as the "Radical Reformation," Anabaptists condemned mainline reformers, including Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, for compromising the Reformation ideal of reinstituting the church according to the explicit teachings of the New Testament.Rejecting all extra-biblical tradition, Anabaptist leaders such Menno Simons established non-conformist sects in which membership was to be freely chosen and conversion symbolized by a second baptism.Finding in their readings of the biblical texts alone no Scriptural support for just war theory, many Anabaptist sects practiced non-resistance in the face of violence, even to the point of death.1.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".