The Experience of Salvific Energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT \n \nThe Experience of Salvific Energy \n \nKaren Courtland Kelly \n \nThe focus of this thesis is the re-emergence of eschatology, one that speaks to modernity, specifically with the notion of salvific energy. Chapters One and Two unpack Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, a book published in English in 1988 and originally written in German in 1977 by Joseph Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI. Chapter Three examines the two key themes of death and eternal life explicitly expressed within Benedict’s book. The remainder of Chapter Three explores the notion of salvific energy, as that notion seems to express itself as an experience and a three-fold carrier of meaning. Benedict alludes to the notion of salvific energy as an experience and uses the dynamics of shelter, support and communication. \n \nThis thesis draws heavily upon the Catechism of the Catholic Church to better understand Benedict’s theological position. The goal is to highlight the valuable field of eschatology and why it continues to be important in people’s lives. Eschatology fully encapsulates the dynamic human condition and this thesis hopes to communicate the urgent need for eschatology’s re-emergence combined with the emergence of salvific energy. Benedict’s experience can renew the field of eschatology with his knowledge of salvific energy. His insights stress the important dynamism in the field of eschatology for modernity and its practical and functional use within the complex dynamic of everyday life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".