MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7089768090 · doi:10.1163/15697312-bja10069

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Heidelberg Catechism

2025· article· en· W7089768090 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reformed Theology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCatechismAppropriationGermanMartin lutherOrder (exchange)Baptism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s contentious relationship with Reformed theology has been well studied. What has been overlooked is Bonhoeffer’s substantial and very positive engagement with the Heidelberg Catechism during his time as an instructor of Confessing Church seminarians (1935–1939). This article suggests reasons for how and why Bonhoeffer was drawn to the Heidelberg Catechism during the German Kirchenkampf of the 1930s. It specifically analyzes Bonhoeffer’s appropriation of several Reformed emphases in the Heidelberg Catechism that were neglected by his own Lutheran tradition—including the use of the Old Testament for discipleship and the ascension of Christ—in order to voice a “living confession” for a church and nation in crisis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 venueJournal of Reformed TheologySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207