Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the connection between singing, breathing, and the Holy Spirit? This chapter seeks to answer this question in the context of a theology of creation and incarnation grounded in trinitarian theology. As every singer knows, you cannot utter a word without breath. In the eternal now, the Word is uttered on the Holy Breath by the Father and utters himself back, on the Holy Breath, to the Father. This is the basis of all activity of the Trinity ‘outside’ of the Trinity. It provides the prototype of communication among creatures, including speech and song, as well as the telos of all authentic communication: eschatological participation in the communion of the Trinity. This chapter considers key moments from a trinitarian history of prayer and worship, highlighting the interaction of Word and Breath both in God’s self-disclosure in creation and redemption (going out), and in the return path of prayer, worship, and thanksgiving (coming in). This chapter offers one possible Roman Catholic approach—drawing on Hildegard of Bingen, Yves Congar, Etienne Vetö, and the Second Vatican Council. The methodological assumptions are largely pre-critical, following practices typical of patristic and medieval writers, enshrined not only in strictly theological works but also in liturgical texts and lectionaries and continued by hymn writers and poets.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".