MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598276846 · doi:10.1111/teth.12183

Introducing Interpretation of Historiographic Texts

2014· article· en· W1598276846 on OpenAlex
Daniel C. Timmer

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching Theology & Religion · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Sudbury
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretation (philosophy)Meaning (existential)Context (archaeology)IdeologySketchOrder (exchange)EpistemologySign (mathematics)SociologyComputer scienceLiteratureLinguisticsHistoryPhilosophyLawPoliticsArtMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The context: The exercise is part of an opening lecture in a course that addresses the interpretation of the “historical” books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (the pedagogy works for any historiographic text). There are ten to twenty students, and we meet in a room small enough to allow us to hear each other. The pedagogical purpose: The exercise is intended to sensitize students to the limitations that characterize history writing. In particular, I want them to see the necessity and usefulness of selectivity, meaning the author's choice of some events and perspectives to the exclusion of others. An appreciation of the very selective nature of historical documents (primary and secondary sources) helps students interpret sympathetically the texts we study, and quickly illuminates the goal or ideology of the text in question in light of the choices made by its author. Description of the strategy: I ask the students to sketch a history of a recent day of their life in ten to fifteen minutes. To do so, they choose the most significant elements and place them in an organizational scheme or logic. There is no minimum or maximum number of main elements, but the time limit forces them to be selective. The choice of an organizational scheme is theirs to make, and I give them some ideas: a/chronological sequence, location, emotion, sphere (family, alone, friends), and so forth. Since history-writing is the imposition of meaningful order on a limited number of data, and since the result should represent faithfully something the author feels is important, the goal of their historical representation (there must be one!) may be anything they consider significant. Once their histories are done, each student explains her/his choice of data and organizational scheme in light of their goal. We focus on ways that selection or omission of data and choice of organizational scheme influence the overall presentation and help communicate the author's main point. Since some students usually know each other, we can often compare some “synoptic” perspectives on the same period or event along the way. The whole exercise takes 60-75 minutes. Why it is effective: It works because it is experiential learning. As they act the part of an author, students develop sympathy for an author's prerogative to choose material, perspective, and organization, and also grasp the link between these choices and the author's goal.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.308 · 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