Bibliographic record
Abstract
290 'I* Book Reviews of his homilies as well.Finally, Louth assigns a chapter to Johns poetry and his essential role in the development of the Eastern Orthodox canon.He states that Johns fame as a theologian or as a preacher is all peripheral, so far as the Byzantine world is concerned, to the fame attached to his liturgical poetry, and everyone in the world touched by Byzantium knows Johns great Easter canon, The Day of Resurrection, as well as many other pieces attributed to John (252).The authors vast knowledge and mastery of the patristic literature makes it possible for him to examine the wide range of theological issues involved in Johns theological oeuvre, in his homilies as well as in his poetry.Louth gives the reader, in each case, a good deal of historical and theological background that leads up to John Damascene who was a compiler and synthesizer of his predecessors; in this way he points out again and again his indispensable place in the early Christian tradition.The book analyzes Johns works, tracing the issues back to the earlier church fathers-such as the Cappadocians, Maximus the Confessor, Dionysius the Areopagite-to whom John is much indebted.The analysis always aims to place him in the tradition of patristic theology.Louth also discusses every single issue involved in light of the most recent studies, thus giving the reader a short survey of patristic doctrine.Moreover, the background surveys of the theological issues before John as well as the manuscript traditions of his works make the book very enjoyable to read.Overall, I think that the book secures itself a very important place in patristic and Byzantine studies, being one of the first critical studies of Johns life and works as a whole.It should become a crucial study for every church historian and student of Christianity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".