Philosophische Probleme der modernen orthodoxen Theologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This publication is a non-academic discussion of the philosophical problems ofcontemporary Orthodox theology. Participants in the discussion were asked to expresstheir views on the most important challenges facing contemporary Orthodoxthinking, focusing on the following questions posed by the editors of the journalOtechestvennaya Philosophiya:1) What is Russian Orthodox theology at the end of the first quarter of the 21stcentury? What do you see as the possible and most important impulses for its development,but also as challenges, problems and obstacles?2) What are the philosophical problems facing Orthodox thought in the 21st century?3) Does modern Orthodox theological language correspond to the contemporaryintellectual context? Should Orthodox theology interact with contemporary philosophicalcurrents and adapt their conceptual and categorical apparatus for its ownpurposes, or is this an unacceptable modernisation of the theological heritage?4) Can we talk about the special nature of the relationship between philosophy andtheology in the local intellectual tradition?5) How do you assess the experience of interaction between philosophical andtheological thinking in the Russian religious-philosophical tradition of the 19th andfirst half of the 20th centuries? Can it beused in modern Orthodox theology, and if so,how?
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".