Contemporary practice and method in the philosophy of religion : new essays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contributions from academics from a range of philosophical traditions, both religious and non-religious. 1. Mark Wynn - British philosopher of religion Exeter University, UK 2. Philip Goodchild - postmodern philosophy of religion Nottingham University, UK 3. James K. Smith - radical orthodoxy/charismatic etc. Calvin College, USA 4. Arvind-Pal Mandair - postmodern Sikh Hofstra University, NY:USA 5. Joshua Goldberg - Jewish philosopher of religion Bellarmine University, USA 6. David Webster University of Gloucester, UK 7. Jonardon Ganeri - Indian Philosopher Liverpool University, UK. 8. Nikky Guninder-Kaur, Sikh Philosopher Colby College US 9. John Schellenberg Mount St. Vincent University, Canada 10. Shabbir Akhtar - Islamic Philosophy of Religion Old Dominion University, USA 11. Michael Sudduth - reformed epistemology San Francisco State University, USA 12. Rolfe King - British philosopher of religion Newman College, UK 13. David Cheetham - British philosopher of religion University of Birmingham, UK 14. Nancey Murphey, Fuller Theological Seminary, USA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".