MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7127910138 · doi:10.7488/era/6889

Darwin in Scotland

2009· article· en· W7127910138 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueERA · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEvolution and Science Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDarwinismFaithCriticismDarwin (ADL)Charles darwinQuarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite some strident voices on both sides of the debate, a consensus emerged amongst Scottish theologians in the last quarter of the 19th century that Darwinian evolution was consistent with a Christian account of the cosmos. Writers such as Robert Rainy, Principal at New College in Edinburgh, argued that the world was endowed by its Maker with a fruitfulness that enabled the emergence of increasingly complex states. This could be viewed in providential terms compatible with Scriptural themes of creation and redemption. In the theology of the ensuing years, a clearer delineation of the separate provinces of science and faith emerged. This was accompanied by more modest strategies of explaining evil and suffering in the world, alongside a turn to moral capacities as a distinguishing feature of human existence. What is perhaps surprising is that while evolution arrived without much fuss in late Victorian Scotland, there was a raging controversy over the application of methods of historical criticism to the Bible.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.222 · 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