Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Figure: see text] Ludwig Wittgenstein's work has appealed to audiences that feared that traditional Christian language was being bandied about with no real significance attached to the ostensibly pious words. Wittgenstein became increasingly attractive to many theologians because his attention to modern philosophical confusions about the nature of language shed light on the linguistic confusion in the churches. Wittgenstein's writings, particularly his later posthumously published notes, promised to be an antidote to the perceived vacuity and superficiality of much Christian discourse. However, Wittgenstein's influence on theology has not been uniform. The elusive and often aphoristic nature of his later reflections has guaranteed that his work has been appropriated in divergent ways. At least two different theological appropriations of his enigmatic remarks have emerged. One set has developed a rather formalistic interpretation of Wittgenstein's remarks about “grammar” and used them to construe Christian doctrines as general rules governing thinking, feeling, and acting. A different variety, while also acknowledging the theme of the grammar of the faith, has emphasized his reflections on the “use” of concepts in the variegated “practices” of specific Christian communities. The first trajectory may best be represented by the Yale theologian George Lindbeck (1923–2018), and the second by another Yale theologian, Paul L. Holmer (1916–2004). In modified and sometimes surreptitious forms, both legacies continue to be influential, often intermingling in complex ways.
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 | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.117 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".