MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7155351862 · doi:10.3917/etr.0823.0439x

Emilio Alberich avec la collaboration de Henri Deroitte et Jérôme Vallabaraj , Les fondamentaux de la catéchèse , Montréal/Bruxelles, Novalis/Lumen Vitae, 2006. 24 cm. 390 p. ISBN 2-87324-281-7/2-89507-789-4. € 27,50

2007· article· fr· W7155351862 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olivier Bauer

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes théologiques et religieuses · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious and Theological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)Relation (database)Identity (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2-8309-1070-2.CHF 29/€ 20.L'objectif de l'ouvrage est d'aider les chrétiens à « discerner comment le message évangélique des origines peut éclairer les enjeux de notre situation contemporaine » (p.11).Il ne s'agit pas, dès lors, de réduire à l'unicité les différentes propositions éthiques du Nouveau Testament, mais de les étudier dans leur contexte respectif.Ainsi il n'y a pas de morale chrétienne comme système unifié, mais une dynamique morale s'inscrivant dans l'histoire à travers les textes bibliques.De la sorte, l'éthicien se met à l'écoute de l'exégète, mais son propos se tient à la lumière des problématiques actuelles.Dans un premier temps, F. étudie les sources du Nouveau Testament en les interrogeant sur la question de leur éthique.Il traite ainsi successivement Paul, Matthieu, Luc, Marc, Jean, les textes deutéro-pauliniens, Jacques, 1 Pierre.Cette partie se conclut par une réflexion plus générale des modèles éthiques du Nouveau Testament.Ensuite, F. procède à l'évaluation générale de ces textes.Une troisième partie, intitulée « Propositions », reprend les Fritz LIENHARD

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0870.021

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes théologiques et religieusesSame topicReligious and Theological StudiesFrench-language works237,207