Expanding Patristic perspectives: Thinking with 50 years of the Canadian Society of Patristic Studies/Association Canadienne des Études Patristiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why would anyone wish to found a new society dedicated to Patristics in the 1970s? In conventional historiographies of Religious Studies, the late 20th century is typically characterized as an era of “progress” away from Theology, the centering of authoritative corpora, and older concerns with doctrine, men, and elites. Even among specialists in Christian antiquity, this era tends to be associated with the recovery of “lost books,” interest in “heretical” and “marginal” perspectives, the amplification of voices “from below,” and newer concerns with bodies, women, and practice. Honoring 50 years of the Canadian Society of Patristic Studies/Association Canadienne des Études Patristiques (CSPS/ACÉP)—founded in 1975—this essay asks what such narratives of scholarly “progress” erase about the past and present alike. It uses the archives of the CSPS/ACÉP as a lens onto the multivocality of Patristic literature and its modern study, as richly realized within bilingual contexts in Canada in particular.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.056 | 0.121 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| 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".