Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une compréhension de la vérité adéquation cause problème dans l’horizon de la foi et de ses expériences plurielles et existentielles. N’oppose-t-on pas encore trop souvent vérité de foi à vérité d’existence ? Cette contribution explore la proposition critique de la dé-coïncidence de François Jullien, cherchant à y voir comment, à contre-courant de glissements réducteurs et sclérosants de la vérité adéquation, la vérité se découvre à travers la confiance/foi, la liberté/espérance et la relation/charité, voire la communauté. L’auteur veut garder ouvert un chemin de Vie en Vérité et y interroger les conditions de possibilité de ce chemin pour aujourd’hui.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Theological essay on truth, faith and existence; not about research.
The article develops a theological account of truth and faith rather than studying research.
Theological-philosophical essay on truth and faith; not about research as object.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".