MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402796430 · doi:10.7202/1113076ar

SPIRIT OF NATURE/SPIRIT OF GOD

2024· article· en· W4402796430 on OpenAlexaff
Sean McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueScience et Esprit · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Ecology, and Ethics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper tracks the concept of the world soul in Schelling’s early and late philosophy. The concept is central to Schelling’s early philosophy of self-organizing nature. It seems to disappear in his later period, in which Schelling distances himself from his earlier pantheism and comes to think of nature as fallen, distanced from the divine, and de-spiritualized. However, Schelling’s subordinationist Trinitarianism conceives of the Trinity as implicated in the Fall and processively included in the redemption. The redemption of nature is the special prerogative of the Third Person, the Holy Spirit, who personalizes himself by emerging through natural history as nature’s principle of organization and goal. All of nature, in the late Schelling’s Pauline vision, is directed toward the revelation of the Christ as the Lord of the Universe. The world soul is not simply identical to the Holy Spirit. For the later Schelling, the world soul does not yet exist. But it will in the end, when it will be actualized as not only the spirit of nature but also the Spirit of God.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.364 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Commentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience et EspritSame topicReligion, Ecology, and EthicsFrench-language works237,207