Bibliographic record
Abstract
When working at the intersection between two disciplines, it is important to be precise about the meaning of key terms.After all, it can be easy for the same word to have slightly different meanings in different disciplines.To say something is "essentially true" means something quite different in philosophy than it does in business writing, for example: in the former case, it means "necessarily true," while in the latter case it means something like "more or less accurate."When this disciplinary difference is not recognized, insights from the use of a term in one discipline may be applied directly to uses of the term in the other discipline, without accounting for the fact that the terms might mean something different.When that happens, a genuinely interdisciplinary insight is missed, precisely because the differences between the different disciplines were not adequately accounted for, examined, and learned from.For this reason, it is important to be clear and precise about the meaning of key terms before one attempts inter-disciplinary work.This is worth mentioning in the context of the current journal issue, which is seeking to examine the intersection of three distinct disciplines: philosophical phenomenology, theology, and environmental studies.In light of that concern, the goal of this paper is quite modest: to clarify the different meanings of 'world' and 'earth' in phenomenology, so that we can begin to set those concepts more properly in conversation with the notion of 'creation care' in Christian environmental circles.[1]My hope is that this clarification may also prove helpful for conversation in environmental theology proper, but that is not my primary goal here.Rather, my interest in this topic is motivated by my experiences in several Christian contexts where concern for the Crossing: The INPR Journal • Crossing: The INPR Journal.Special
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".