MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7160372572 · doi:10.3917/rspt.1031.0245d

Annik Aussedat-Minvielle , Ritualia Gallica II/3A et B. Formulaires et formules : Pénitence. Enseignement de la foi. Conseils de vie chrétienne , 2 vol., Turnhout, Brepols, 2019, 16 × 23,5, 2016 p., 395 €, ISBN : 978-2-503-55167-8.

2020· article· fr· W7160372572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Serge Tyvaert

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject (documents)Theme (computing)Identity (music)Reading (process)Interpretation (philosophy)Test (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vite oubliée au lendemain du concile Vatican II, la contribution du P. Garrigou-Lagrange (1877-1964) au débat de l’entre-deux-guerres sur l’ascétique et la mystique a pourtant été essentielle, et Perfection chrétienne et contemplation, le grand livre qu’il publie en 1923 et qui rassemble des articles déjà parus dans La Vie spirituelle, mérite sans contredit d’être tenu pour un classique de la théologie française du xxe siècle. L’ouvrage se place à un carrefour polémique crucial en même temps qu’il conserve d’importantes traces du dialogue théorique entre le P. Garrigou-Lagrange et le philosophe Jacques Maritain. Au terme de quatre années de combat polémique acharné, depuis la parution du premier numéro de La Vie spirituelle jusqu’à la publication de Perfection chrétienne et contemplation, le P. Garrigou-Lagrange est parvenu à asseoir sur la scène théologique une école de spiritualité dominicaine aisément identifiable.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.023

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques→Same topicReligious, Philosophical, and Educational Studies→French-language works237,207→