Bibliographic record
Abstract
F undamentalism" is an overused word with an unclear and contested meaning, often used pejoratively toward religious groups and persons seen as extreme; yet some scholarship suggests that fundamentalism is also an area for interreligious work.According to Peter A. Huff, research should focus on dialoguing with rather than demonizing fundamentalisms, since they are the final frontier for interfaith work. 1 This, however, is difficult, since fundamentalists are typically opposed to ecumenical efforts, and demonization impedes dialogue, thereby perpetuating fundamentalisms.This tension is best illustrated by the very term with which fundamentalists are identified -a term often perceived as abusive.According to Alvin Plantinga, "fundamentalist" is a label comparable to English curse words.When someone employs the term's emotive use, they mean that a fundamentalist is "a stupid sumbitch whose theological views are considerably to the right of mine." 2 Originally, the term was a rallying cry for twentieth century American evangelicals defending their faith from modernism and liberal Christianity.This original, historic fundamentalism was (and remains) a subset of evangelicalism, 3 which is itself a complex and difficult-to-define movement, understood as a subset of Protestantism. 4 Fundamentalism, as a term, has 1.According to Huff, opening a dialogue with fundamentalisms will "revolutionize ventures in interreligious dialogue."See
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".