MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414040705 · doi:10.1002/9781394195855.ch22

Catholicity in Modern Orthodox Ecclesiology

2025· other· en· W4414040705 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Ladouceur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcclesiologyIntuitionUniversality (dynamical systems)Church Fathers

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Russian notion of sobornost is understood in two related senses: the universality of the Church and its teachings (typically translated as “catholicity”); and a method of governance and decision-making in the Church (typically translated “conciliarity”). This chapter considers sobornost as catholicity in modern Orthodox ecclesiology. It elucidates similarities and differences in sobornost as catholicity in Alexei Khomyakov, Sergius Bulgakov, Vladimir Lossky, Georges Florovsky, Nicholas Afanasiev, and John Zizioulas. Despite differences in other aspects of their theologies, all, with the exception of Zizioulas, articulate the ancient patristic notion of catholicity ( katholikoteta , katholike (adj.)) as the Church containing and transmitting the fulness of truth of divine revelation. Correspondingly, most pay less attention to sobornost as conciliarity, viewing conciliarity as flowing from catholicity. From the initial intuition of the Slavophiles of the Church as community developed eucharistic ecclesiology, articulated especially by Afanasiev and Zizioulas, with Zizioulas stressing the hierarchical nature of the Church.

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 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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicReligion and Society InteractionsFrench-language works237,207