MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499768774 · doi:10.4000/rhr.4620

The origins of Christian veneration of body-parts

2006· article· fr· W1499768774 on OpenAlexaff
John Wortley

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l histoire des religions · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArchaeology and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDispose patternPopularityChoseHistoryLawEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why did Christians chose to retain human corpses unburied and to dismember them, when most other people felt obliged to dispose of the dead, usually by burial or incineration? Three possible reasons are discussed. First, the marked emphasis on physical contact in all the biblical cases of healing (a buried body cannot be touched). Secondly, incinerated remains could be legally retained unburied and may have provided the earliest objects of Christian relic devotion. Thirdly, the Egyptian Christians, (we learn from Athanasius) adopted the long-standing pagan practice of embalming the corpses of martyrs and exposing them in private houses, ready prey for unscrupulous men who, realizing the popularity of such relics, were not slow to appreciate the advantages of trafficking in them.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
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 studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l histoire des religionsSame topicArchaeology and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207