Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Huffington Post is not typically where one finds greatly nuanced theological arguments, and a recent article by Craig Considine ("Why a Christian Can View Muhammad As A Prophet" 1 ) is no exception.Considine, with no formal theological training, lectures in the sociology department at Rice University with a special emphasis on the sociology of religion and Christian-Muslim relations.I have no quibble with his sociological methodology, but his theological arguments are suspect.Briefly, Considine urges Christians to recognize Muhammad as a prophet.He argues: "[Muhammad] was an exceptional person; he might even be the greatest and most influential human being ever to walk the face of the earth.Prophet Muhammad brought love, peace, and much more to a part of the world that had little of these things."The desire to recognize Muhammad as a prophet springs from an ecumenical spirit seeking to encourage harmony among humanity."To push that boundary of 'Christian identity,'" he concludes, "is to pave the way for a future that makes more room for the 'Other.'" 1 Huffington Post, 1/26/2016.
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 | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".